posted by lander:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, Phadeus, what I did was to call you on your EXACT words. You CLEARLY stated that a fetus is a parasite, ahem by meeting the defintion of such.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right, then twisted the logic around to include humans who do not meet the scientific qualifications of a parasite by virtue of the fact that they are not fetuses (fetii? not sure what is right.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It's implicit, since you found it relevant to the abortion debate, that IYHO killing a "parasite" is ok.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not exactly. As I have said now twice, I find abortion morally repugant; the problem is that a fetus meets the scientific definition of a parasite, and a woman meets all epistemological qualifications for a sovereign individual, so it comes down to the woman taking precendence by way of superior nature (leaving aside the moral consideration.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Perhaps, it is. I do not know, but if indeed killing a "parsite" with human DNA is "ok" then can we assume that killing any dependent human is "ok"? What about social parasites (ie welfare recipients)?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, this is an extension of the term parasite which does not apply. I didn't use the term "scientific" to sound brainy; I meant it in order to be specific enough to avoid having to play these stupid word games.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
These questions are very intact with the philosphical arguments presented.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No they aren't. I didn't put forward a philosophical argument about parasites. I put forward a scientific observation. My philosophic view of abortion, one more time, is that it is morally repugnant. It is also retarded, given the number of stable, kind, financially responsible couples in the world desperate to have a child, but unable to conceive, who would gladly adopt (the classifieds section of almost any major newspaper in the U.S. will always have ads from these people.) And contrary to the ACLU party line, a relatively low number of abortions come from women who were raped, the victims of incest, or are in medical danger from their pregnancy (all traditional liberal "justifications" for abortion.) So, in addition to considering women who have abortions to be morally deficient, I also consider them stupid, lazy and selfish -- because any number would run into this thread right now and say, "I was young, I didn't kow what to do, you'll never know what it was like, it was the hardest thing I ever had to do." And all I can say to them is that if having an abortion is the hardest thing you've ever done, you've clearly never let one live.
And as I said in my earlier posts, the key to settling the abortion issue is as simple as determining at which point consciousness begins in human development. And unfortunately neither side of the debate is interested in anything which requires thought and work to achieve, so it boils down to just another sad, quintessentially American "Tastes Great! Less Filling!" debate over an issue which imho deserves better.
Phaedrus
