Pro Choice Women view babies as parasites...

[Mountain Man]

The only problem is that "the devil made me do it" won't excuse or save anyone,there is such a thing as willful evil and people are perfectly capable of creating,crafting and carrying out Evil all on their own......there are no victims here except the innocent children.

Some times those innocent are also the girls who don't 'get it' until it is to late... Like mel screaming no no at the last minute so they sedated her and killed her child...

 

[abide]

Hi everyone... No I haven't dropped off the face of the earth...lol..

What I have been doing is using my more limited computer time going on a worldly website for mothers.... I mix it up, try to be a good witness and impart such wisdom as I have... I look at it as sort of a mission field. I discuss a lot of the same sort of things that we discuss here a lot...but I'm mindful that I'm being an ambassador, much more than here where I'm just one of the sisters. I've managed to share the gospel with several of the women there, so hopefully, I'm helping sow some good seeds.


Anyway, abortion is always a ready topic and just like here the pro-life/pro-choice camps are sharply divided.

But today I saw something that just left me sort of stunned. A response to a thread about abortion in which a number of the women (and keep in mind, all of these women are mothers) referred to the woman as the "host". I weighed in with, "Mothers are "hosts"? What next, are babies parasites?"

And with that came many afirmative answers.

I was so surprised at this that I put in my own thread with a poll. The question was, "If you are pro-choice, do you view a fetus as a parasite? Yes or No."

Out of a total of 60 votes, 66% voted yes. Mothers, all of them.

I was really saddened by it. I will say that a number of mothers did says that they would never view their fetus as a parasite, but that they did feel that a woman should make her own choices when it comes to ending a pregnancy...but a whopping 2/3 majority of the pro-choice women readily and may I say even vehemently asserted that absolutely, a fetus is a parasite.

I cry for the world sometimes...:gah

Something is so wrong with these people all I can do is SMH,

 

[Tiamat777]

Pro Choice Women view babies as parasites...

This is one of the most disturbing things I've read in a long time. It is clearly evident that human life begins at conception. Killing a baby, no matter what stage of development, is murder.

Pro Choicers have no logic, they only use word games and play semantics. Human life is human life no matter what stage of development.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Makes me sick.... See the thinking coming down the slimy trail .... If the un born are parasites the old folks and infirmed are next....

I think they are, Reba. I'm 53 and almost afraid to grow old.

 

[Classik]

4

 

[evenifigoalone]

I'm posting an excellent article here written by verixas92 on deviantART (he lives in the UK, so that's why he spells the word "fetus" differently):

7 reasons why a foetus is not a parasite

1. Different species

Parasitism is defined by one species feeding off another. In the case of pregnancy, the unborn offspring is not a different species, but belongs to the same species as the mother. Thus, it does not fit this description. However, I understand that there are some who assert that a foetus is not a human. This will be addressed in point 4.

2. Non-mutual relationship

Parasitism, unlike symbiosis, is characterized by being non-mutual. Biological non-mutualism is a relationship that is characterized by a species feeding off another’s bodily resources, going against the natural biological adaptation of the species it lives in or on. This defines the biological relationship between the two living entities as parasite-host. In the case of a foetus, the biological relationship is not non-mutual.

Although the foetus is dependent on the mother for life, it is not biologically non-mutual, as there is an organ (the uterus) that is specifically for the purpose of feeding and catering for the foetus. If, for example, there was an organ specifically there for the purpose of supplying blood and nutrients to fleas, then technically, if fleas were to feed on this, it would not be parasitism. As it happens, there isn’t one- the body is not designed to host fleas, lice, worms, or any parasite. The female body is, however, designed with a uterus- which does feed the foetus. Thus, pregnancy is not non-mutual.

3. Transmission

Parasites are transmitted externally. They are not developed internally, within the host’s body. A parasite exists prior to existing in it’s host.

According the Encylcopaedia Britannica, there are three types of parasites (referenced from the article “parasite” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/443191/parasitism):

Ectoparasites, which live on the body, and there are two types of endoparasites- intercellular endoparasites, which inhabit spaces between cells, within the host’s body and
intracellular endoparasites, which literally live inside a cell of a host’s body.

The closest a foetus comes to, would be an intercellular endoparasite, as it inhabits the uterus (it does not live on the outside of the woman’s body, nor does it live inside a cell). Although, as mentioned in point 2, the uterus’ function is to “host” a foetus, so technically, it is not unnatural for the woman’s body to have this inside of her- the whole concept of a parasite is an organism that is not meant to be there, according to the nature of the host.

However, by contrast to intercellular endoparasites, a foetus is not “transmitted” by a “carrier” or “vector”- the father does not classify as one, because the “parasite” (the foetus) does not exist, when his penis enters the woman during intercourse. What enters the woman is sperm. The foetus results from sperm and egg meeting. Thus, a foetus, which is not transmitted externally, but develops internally, fails to comply with this definition. Sexual intercourse, the act that would result in pregnancy, is not classified as medical transmission of a parasite. Thus, a foetus is not a parasite.

4. Development

A parasite, inside it’s host, develops into nothing more than it’s species. Let’s assume a foetus is not human- in which case, you might argue that it is not the same species as it’s mother. Though I am curious as to what exactly it is, if it is not a human. But, for now, assuming that a foetus is not a human- then that means it develops into a human being. But a parasite never develops into another species- it remains the same species it always is.

I’ll admit this point is not the strongest, as parasites can develop in some ways, inside their hosts. But this point is mainly in response to those who claim that a foetus is not human. Human, biologically speaking, is a species, so to deny a foetus is a human would mean that a foetus is a different species. Even if this were true, it clearly develops into a human, but no parasite has ever been observed to develop into a different species.

5. Intrinsic principle

I will have to admit, this argument is more philosophical than scientific. By intrinsic principle, a foetus should not be killed, as it defeats the principle of reproduction.

However, a parasite, in principle, is harmful. Reproduction is supposed to happen, as a biological necessity. Parasitism is not, at least, for the host, supposed to happen. A parasite is intrinsically bad. Intrinsic value is vital to consider in ethics. If something is intrinsically bad, it is absolutely and necessarily bad, and in principle, needs to be destroyed. This is the principle of a parasite. A foetus, in principle, is not intrinsically bad, and does not need to be destroyed. Thus, it fails to fulfil the same principle that defines a parasite.

6. Parasitism does not benefit the host, and is not a natural necessity.

One of the fundamental defining features of a parasite, which distinguishes it from symbiosis, is the harm, or lack of benefit that it gives to it’s host. A parasite is thus, intrinsically bad (as mentioned in the latter point), and in principle, should be got rid of. Now, a foetus does feed off a mother’s body, and this is often cited as the first, or only, reason for why a foetus is a parasite. But as mentioned in point 2, the relationship is not non-mutual. The benefits of a parasite infestation are none. The benefits of pregnancy, however, are obvious- the continuation of the species.

Pregnancy is a natural necessity- animals/humans need to reproduce, in order to continue their species. Parasitism, however, is not a natural necessity for the host- it may be for the parasite, but not for the host. Due to the mandatory and beneficial nature of pregnancy, it is not true to say that pregnancy does not benefit anyone. You may argue it does not directly benefit the mother, per se, but it certainly does benefit the species, and it is necessary. A species does not need to be infected by a parasite, however- the principle of parasitic infection is intrinsically harmful or unbeneficial and unnecessary.

7. Pregnancy is not a disease or infestation

The encyclopaedia of science defines a disease as:

“A disturbance of normal bodily function in an organism.”

Here, we see that a disease is an abnormal biological condition.

A parasite infestation is a disease, or an unhealthy or abnormal condition of the body. A parasite infestation is a type of disease, because it is abnormal and harmful to the host.

Thus, if a foetus were truly a parasite medically, then pregnancy would technically be classified as a disease. However, the encyclopaedia of science defines pregnancy as:

In humans the nine-month period from the fertilization and implantation of an ovum (egg), the development of embryo and fetus through the birth of a child

A disease is something that, in principle, endangers the life of an animal, and should be got rid of (thus, this point relates to point 5). Again, in principle, pregnancy is not intrinsically dangerous, and in fact, is necessary for the survival and continuation of a species. Thus, a pregnancy is not a disease or an infestation, as it is not an abnormal condition, neither is it intrinsically harmful. All parasites infestations, however, are diseases, because they are harmful, or else abnormal. Thus, a foetus is not a parasite.

 

[stovebolts]

Pro Choice Women view babies as parasites...

This is one of the most disturbing things I've read in a long time. It is clearly evident that human life begins at conception. Killing a baby, no matter what stage of development, is murder.

Pro Choicers have no logic, they only use word games and play semantics. Human life is human life no matter what stage of development.

It's good to hear this. I have a feeling that as our culture gets numbed down on this issue we will start to see bolder and bolder statements in regard to the justification of murdering children. I believe history will repeat itself, and we see this in the OT with Molech.

 

[jasoncran]

yup, and sadly jeff. we will then wonder why more sandy hooks will come.hard to tell a teen its ok to kill your baby at age 2 and not to kill after two or to kill in school.

 

[Classik]

Hi Jason....and Welcome back.

That's perhaps a new avatar you've got there...perhaps I'v faltered...in my observability observantum. The baby has grown a lot. Wow

 

[jasoncran]

well she should have. she is almost 2.lol. I have also another, born last night. the miracle child. the mother was told by doctors never to have kids and that is her second.

 

[Classik]

Oh wowww! Jason! Congrats. What are you waiting for? Lets get the party started

 

[jasoncran]

lol. a game of soccer. or a barca, barca, barca chant.

 

[Classik]

lol. a game of soccer. or a barca, barca, barca chant.

Of course our Barça anthem must be sang to make the party great...for the baby. Hope you've chosen the best name for the baby?

 

[jasoncran]

lol. im not the father. she is my granddaughter.

 

[Deborah13]

maybe these women should think pro tubectomy, instead of having sex without condoms.

My thoughts actually.

 

[YosefHayim]

Moloch was a Semitic deity. Pagans worshiped this false god, and the Israelites fell into apostasy many times worshiping this iniquitous creation of man. Worshipers of this idol would engage in orgies and the children that were conceived from these orgies became a sacrifice for their god as burnt offerings. They killed the babies, burning their innocent bodies with flames for wicked desires of pleasure. Today these practices are highly common in this generation, particularly the United States. They have been given different titles today such as "sexual freedom," "the woman's right to choose," "pro-choice," and "abortion."

The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. —Ecclesiastes 1:9

 

[forgiven]

EXACTLY!! If you don't want children there are ways to try to prevent it, most of all to not do 'the act' that will get you pregnant. I'm sorry but I cannot understand a woman that has carried a child in her womb and felt the miracle of a life forming in her womb to then turn around and call that child a parasite if it was not planned! This is coming from a woman that had 2 pregnancies and a tubal directly after the 2nd child was born due to the complications I experienced with my pregnancies. I prayed long and hard on this decision and hubby and I felt this was the best way to go. BUT if I were to find out I was pregnant today the child being a PARASITE would be the farthest thing from my mind! I sometimes can not even begin to comprehend others reasonings.

 

[forgiven]

OK sorry still new here and I meant to attach Deborah13 last post to mine. That is what I was saying exactly to.....

 

[Guest]

I sometimes can not even begin to comprehend others reasonings.

Morality decay. We're getting closer to the coming of Jesus.

 

[jasoncran]

its not new. I bet if we could talk to the molech worshippers we would have found some similar arguments for the murder of the babies. man is evil by nature.