[Abortion Megathread] Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? REVISED POLL

[Wallenburg]

I'm very much pro-choice but using terms like "parasite" to describe a fetus is a simplistic reduction of a very complex entity.

Because of the same reasons I prefer to refrain from calling people "leftists" just because they hold one or two leftists views.

Parasites are themselves very complex entities. Nevertheless, you have an argument there. Depending on the definition you use, a fetus may or may not be a parasite, but it is always parasitic.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

It won't typically reject a tapeworm, either.

Oh for fuck's sake.

A tapeworm infection DOES trigger the host's defences, but the tapeworm have evolved in tandem with its host (which is not that uncommon) to counteract these defence mechanism. Very simple concept of evolutionary fitness. More adapted to the host = more fit.

What is with abortion debates that make people intentionally say this kind of unintelligent stuff?

A fetus isn't literally a parasite, no, but the bodily harm that comes with carrying a fetus is adequately similar to compare a fetus and a parasite. Both survive off the host, using it's resources, energy, whatever, causing bodily damage in a large number of cases, and give nothing back to the host.

Comparing a fetus to a parasite is not entirely unintelligent. But it's often unnecessary.

Also, yes, the human body does try to reject Z/E/Fs more than you would expect.

[Esternial]

I'm very much pro-choice but using terms like "parasite" to describe a fetus is a simplistic reduction of a very complex entity.

Because of the same reasons I prefer to refrain from calling people "leftists" just because they hold one or two leftists views.

Parasites are themselves very complex entities. Nevertheless, you have an argument there. Depending on the definition you use, a fetus may or may not be a parasite, but it is always parasitic.

Wrong.

A parasitic relationship exists between one species and another.

Fetuses are very much part of the same species as their "host" and have a completely different fysiological relationship. Why can people not stop with trying to dumb things down and just describe a fetus with more than one word?

A fetus isn't literally a parasite, no, but the bodily harm that comes with carrying a fetus is adequately similar to compare a fetus and a parasite. Both survive off the host, using it's resources, energy, whatever, causing bodily damage in a large number of cases, and give nothing back to the host.

Comparing a fetus to a parasite is not entirely unintelligent. But it's often unnecessary.

Also, yes, the human body does try to reject Z/E/Fs more than you would expect.

It's intentionally warping the definition of parasitism for dramatic purposes, so I still feel it's rather pointless.

[Wallenburg]

Parasites are themselves very complex entities. Nevertheless, you have an argument there. Depending on the definition you use, a fetus may or may not be a parasite, but it is always parasitic.

Wrong.

A parasitic relationship exists between one species and another.

Fetuses are very much part of the same species as their "host" and have a completely different fysiological relationship. Why can people not stop with trying to dumb things down and just describe a fetus with more than one word?

A fetus isn't literally a parasite, no, but the bodily harm that comes with carrying a fetus is adequately similar to compare a fetus and a parasite. Both survive off the host, using it's resources, energy, whatever, causing bodily damage in a large number of cases, and give nothing back to the host.

Comparing a fetus to a parasite is not entirely unintelligent. But it's often unnecessary.

Also, yes, the human body does try to reject Z/E/Fs more than you would expect.

It's intentionally warping the definition of parasitism for dramatic purposes, so I still feel it's rather pointless.

Definition of parasite in English:
NOUN
1 An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense:

Definition of parasitism in English:
[MASS NOUN]
1 The practice of living as a parasite on or with another animal or organism:

[Esternial]

Wrong.

A parasitic relationship exists between one species and another.

Fetuses are very much part of the same species as their "host" and have a completely different fysiological relationship. Why can people not stop with trying to dumb things down and just describe a fetus with more than one word?

It's intentionally warping the definition of parasitism for dramatic purposes, so I still feel it's rather pointless.

Definition of parasite in English:
NOUN
1 An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense:

Definition of parasitism in English:
[MASS NOUN]
1 The practice of living as a parasite on or with another animal or organism:

That's nice but that's not the actual biological definiton of a parasite, which everyone is trying to use when it comes to fetuses.

an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Even Merriam Webster categorises that definition as the "simple" definition. Not that their "full" definition is that much more extensive.

Same goes for the first sentence of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: https://www.britannica.com/science/parasitism

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

That's nice but that's not the actual biological definiton of a parasite, which everyone is trying to use when it comes to fetuses.

an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Even Merriam Webster categorises that definition as the "simple" definition. Not that their "full" definition is that much more extensive.

Same goes for the sentence of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: https://www.britannica.com/science/parasitism

Probably because they are using the everyday-man's definition, i.e. the definition the word means in non-biological everyday discussion, as opposed to the biological or medical terminology. Both definitions are valid.

[Esternial]

That's nice but that's not the actual biological definiton of a parasite, which everyone is trying to use when it comes to fetuses.



Even Merriam Webster categorises that definition as the "simple" definition. Not that their "full" definition is that much more extensive.

Same goes for the sentence of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: https://www.britannica.com/science/parasitism

Probably because they are using the everyday-man's definition, i.e. the definition the word means in non-biological everyday discussion, as opposed to the biological or medical terminology. Both definitions are valid.

Not if you jump to descriptions like "survive off the host, using it's resources, energy, whatever, causing bodily damage in a large number of cases" which all sits very much in a biological and medical context.

So you'd basically be trying to get away with associating the non-biological definition with biological properties. Cool.

[Wallenburg]

That's nice but that's not the actual biological definiton of a parasite, which everyone is trying to use when it comes to fetuses.

You're right. This is the biological definition:

Parasite

Definition
noun, plural: parasites
An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism.

an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Even Merriam Webster categorises that definition as the "simple" definition. Not that their "full" definition is that much more extensive.

No, it doesn't. Read your link again.

Same goes for the first sentence of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: https://www.britannica.com/science/parasitism

Meanwhile, from the UXL Encyclopedia of Science.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Probably because they are using the everyday-man's definition, i.e. the definition the word means in non-biological everyday discussion, as opposed to the biological or medical terminology. Both definitions are valid.

Not if you jump to descriptions like "survive off the host, using it's resources, energy, whatever, causing bodily damage in a large number of cases" which all sits very much in a biological and medical context.

So you'd basically be trying to get away with associating the non-biological definition with biological properties. Cool.

The non-biological definition has biologic properties, but not to the extent that the biological definition has. So, you're really grasping at straws here. It would be incorrect for a biologist to write a research paper wherein he describe a fetus as "a parasite." But it is entirely valid for someone to claim in a non-professional discussion that a fetus is parasitic or compares it to a parasite.

[Esternial]

Not if you jump to descriptions like "survive off the host, using it's resources, energy, whatever, causing bodily damage in a large number of cases" which all sits very much in a biological and medical context.

So you'd basically be trying to get away with associating the non-biological definition with biological properties. Cool.

The non-biological definition has biologic properties, but not to the extent that the biological definition has. So, you're really grasping at straws here. It would be incorrect for a biologist to write a research paper wherein he describe a fetus as "a parasite." But it is entirely valid for someone to claim in a non-professional discussion that a fetus is parasitic or compares it to a parasite.

Then we disagree. I understand unknowingly misusing certain definitions but intentionally doing so for the purpose of an appeal to emotion by using a powerful word such as "parasite" is nothing short of a fallancy.

That's nice but that's not the actual biological definiton of a parasite, which everyone is trying to use when it comes to fetuses.

You're right. This is the biological definition:

Parasite

Definition
noun, plural: parasites
An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism.

Even Merriam Webster categorises that definition as the "simple" definition. Not that their "full" definition is that much more extensive.

No, it doesn't. Read your link again.

Same goes for the first sentence of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: https://www.britannica.com/science/parasitism

Meanwhile, from the UXL Encyclopedia of Science.

Yes it does, read it again. Full Definition of parasite, point 2.

Anyway, this is getting us nowhere. I'll browse some articles and get back to you.

EDIT: The articles I found don't specific an explicit definition, though do make distinctions between "parasitic species" and "host species" which does imply a difference in species. Either way, most biologists stick to the more strict definition of parasitism as far as I know, as parasitic species are specifically evolved for this purpose. Fetuses, on the other hand, receive help. The mother's body accomodates and aids in the generation of the placenta, which would mean the fetus does not forcefully gain access to the mother's resources.

That's about all I can offer in terms of semantics here.

[Alvecia]

It was my understanding that the distinction between a parasite and other organisms of like are that it take from the host without providing any benefit.
A symbiote is one that provides benefit to the host.
Not sure what a neutral organism would be called, is that parasite as well?

[Godular]

The non-biological definition has biologic properties, but not to the extent that the biological definition has. So, you're really grasping at straws here. It would be incorrect for a biologist to write a research paper wherein he describe a fetus as "a parasite." But it is entirely valid for someone to claim in a non-professional discussion that a fetus is parasitic or compares it to a parasite.

Then we disagree. I understand unknowingly misusing certain definitions but intentionally doing so for the purpose of an appeal to emotion by using a powerful word such as "parasite" is nothing short of a fallancy.

You're right. This is the biological definition:


No, it doesn't. Read your link again.

Meanwhile, from the UXL Encyclopedia of Science.

Yes it does, read it again. Full Definition of parasite, point 2.

Anyway, this is getting us nowhere. I'll browse some articles and get back to you.

EDIT: The articles I found don't specific an explicit definition, though do make distinctions between "parasitic species" and "host species" which does imply a difference in species. Either way, most biologists stick to the more strict definition of parasitism as far as I know, as parasitic species are specifically evolved for this purpose. Fetuses, on the other hand, receive help. The mother's body accomodates and aids in the generation of the placenta, which would mean the fetus does not forcefully gain access to the mother's resources.

That's about all I can offer in terms of semantics here.

The articles I'm reading make no mention regarding whether the host 'accomodating' an organism precludes the organism from being designated a parasite, only that one acquires nutrients/resources at the expense of the host.

[New Celisia]

As a Libertarian Socialist and Secular Humanist I cannot personally abide by the lax abortion policies that are being supported by ultra liberals and pseudo egalitarian movements like modern Feminism. What I find to be the most disturbing element in all of this rhetoric between both sides is the ramifications that such dramatic and false rhetoric is going to have in the future, and that it is being watched closely by those a generation below us. How we redefine the aspects of our society, and how we ignore those millions that disagree with us believing our own methods are superior, wishing to reform those we disagree with is beyond me. Especially while attempting to retain the moral high ground and actually having the audacity to mention words such as freedom, liberty, and diversity.

From observation it appears that a large number of individuals on both sides of the spectrum have more akin to African Warlords naming their organization such names as freedom fighters and the like, then they do to any legitimate egalitarian movements.
The double standards in the law and the blatant hypocrisy is nauseating. At least be consistent. If fetuses aren't considered alive by social standards then crimes such as murder against a pregnant woman should count as a single homicide. If women are allowed to completely omit a man from the decision of abortion or any right to his potential offspring, then women shouldn't be able to force a man to pay for a baby he didn't want. If you want bodily sovereignty and freedom of choice it should go both ways. Otherwise you're just fostering a greater legacy of sexism and inequality that our descendants will have to endure.

[Godular]

As a Libertarian Socialist and Secular Humanist I cannot personally abide by the lax abortion policies that are being supported by ultra liberals and pseudo egalitarian movements like modern Feminism. What I find to be the most disturbing element in all of this rhetoric between both sides is the ramifications that such dramatic and false rhetoric is going to have in the future, and that it is being watched closely by those a generation below us. How we redefine the aspects of our society, and how we ignore those millions that disagree with us believing our own methods are superior, wishing to reform those we disagree with is beyond me. Especially while attempting to retain the moral high ground and actually having the audacity to mention words such as freedom, liberty, and diversity.

From observation it appears that a large number of individuals on both sides of the spectrum have more akin to African Warlords naming their organization such names as freedom fighters and the like, then they do to any legitimate egalitarian movements.
The double standards in the law and the blatant hypocrisy is nauseating. At least be consistent. If fetuses aren't considered alive by social standards then crimes such as murder against a pregnant woman should count as a single homicide. If women are allowed to completely omit a man from the decision of abortion or any right to his potential offspring, then women shouldn't be able to force a man to pay for a baby he didn't want. If you want bodily sovereignty and freedom of choice it should go both ways. Otherwise you're just fostering a greater legacy of sexism and inequality that our descendants will have to endure.

Many of the Pro-Choice folks here support the man having a way to abdicate responsibility for a child he does not feel ready to care for. I will also admit that it is difficult to justify killing a pregnant woman as a double homicide, though few of the pro-choice folks here will say that a fetus does not count as alive.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

As a Libertarian Socialist and Secular Humanist I cannot personally abide by the lax abortion policies that are being supported by ultra liberals and pseudo egalitarian movements like modern Feminism. What I find to be the most disturbing element in all of this rhetoric between both sides is the ramifications that such dramatic and false rhetoric is going to have in the future, and that it is being watched closely by those a generation below us. How we redefine the aspects of our society, and how we ignore those millions that disagree with us believing our own methods are superior, wishing to reform those we disagree with is beyond me. Especially while attempting to retain the moral high ground and actually having the audacity to mention words such as freedom, liberty, and diversity.

From observation it appears that a large number of individuals on both sides of the spectrum have more akin to African Warlords naming their organization such names as freedom fighters and the like, then they do to any legitimate egalitarian movements.
The double standards in the law and the blatant hypocrisy is nauseating. At least be consistent. If fetuses aren't considered alive by social standards then crimes such as murder against a pregnant woman should count as a single homicide. If women are allowed to completely omit a man from the decision of abortion or any right to his potential offspring, then women shouldn't be able to force a man to pay for a baby he didn't want. If you want bodily sovereignty and freedom of choice it should go both ways. Otherwise you're just fostering a greater legacy of sexism and inequality that our descendants will have to endure.

It has literally nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is "alive." it being alive is completely useless information. What it does have to do with is the right for a woman to not be forced into carrying a pregnancy and giving birth against her will. Men/people with penises have nothing that comes even remotely close. If you want the right to a paper abortion, I don't disagree with that, but don't sit around comparing forced pregnancy to child support. That's like comparing a bologna sandwich to a porcelain doll.

[Wallenburg]

As a Libertarian Socialist and Secular Humanist I cannot personally abide by the lax abortion policies that are being supported by ultra liberals and pseudo egalitarian movements like modern Feminism.

How does your identity as a social libertarian in any way conflict with recognizing women's basic right to self-ownership? Also, what exactly does "lax abortion policies" mean?

What I find to be the most disturbing element in all of this rhetoric between both sides is the ramifications that such dramatic and false rhetoric is going to have in the future, and that it is being watched closely by those a generation below us. How we redefine the aspects of our society, and how we ignore those millions that disagree with us believing our own methods are superior, wishing to reform those we disagree with is beyond me.

Exactly what are you trying to say here, and how does it have anything to do with abortion?

Especially while attempting to retain the moral high ground and actually having the audacity to mention words such as freedom, liberty, and diversity.

Yes, how dare people ever utter such infernal words!

From observation it appears that a large number of individuals on both sides of the spectrum have more akin to African Warlords naming their organization such names as freedom fighters and the like, then they do to any legitimate egalitarian movements.

Nice ad hominem and false comparison. Last time I checked, African warlords generally don't care about bodily sovereignty. The pro-choice movement holds bodily sovereignty as its chief tenet.

The double standards in the law and the blatant hypocrisy is nauseating. At least be consistent. If fetuses aren't considered alive by social standards then crimes such as murder against a pregnant woman should count as a single homicide.

Actually, the law that counts the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide was pushed into existence by the anti-abortion camp for the specific purpose of pretending that the fetus is a legal person. Pro-choicers had nothing to do with it. Don't charge us with a double standard when your own camp is responsible for that law.

If women are allowed to completely omit a man from the decision of abortion or any right to his potential offspring, then women shouldn't be able to force a man to pay for a baby he didn't want. If you want bodily sovereignty and freedom of choice it should go both ways. Otherwise you're just fostering a greater legacy of sexism and inequality that our descendants will have to endure.

I agree, as has pretty much every pro-choicer on this thread and its predecessors.

[Katganistan]

Let us stay on the topic of discussing abortion, and whether the pro-choice or pro-life position is preferable. Leave off-topic posts about scenarios best left for B-grade horror movies out, shall we?

[Esternial]

Then we disagree. I understand unknowingly misusing certain definitions but intentionally doing so for the purpose of an appeal to emotion by using a powerful word such as "parasite" is nothing short of a fallancy.


Yes it does, read it again. Full Definition of parasite, point 2.

Anyway, this is getting us nowhere. I'll browse some articles and get back to you.

EDIT: The articles I found don't specific an explicit definition, though do make distinctions between "parasitic species" and "host species" which does imply a difference in species. Either way, most biologists stick to the more strict definition of parasitism as far as I know, as parasitic species are specifically evolved for this purpose. Fetuses, on the other hand, receive help. The mother's body accomodates and aids in the generation of the placenta, which would mean the fetus does not forcefully gain access to the mother's resources.

That's about all I can offer in terms of semantics here.

The articles I'm reading make no mention regarding whether the host 'accomodating' an organism precludes the organism from being designated a parasite, only that one acquires nutrients/resources at the expense of the host.

Well, here we go then. I found an article that provided some insights. Maybe it might for you, as well.

From:
"Functional Biology of Parasitism: Ecological and evolutionary implications"
edited by G.W. Esch, J.C. Fernandez

I do get the impression that the abridged definition you provided several times now is indeed valid, but not entirely. While it can be considered the classical definition of "Parasitism", its properties have been more clearly defined to allow a more precise idea.

For one, I don't believe the reproductive potential of a fetus exceeds that of their host, considering both are of the same species and thus possess broadly the same reproductive potential.

The properties in the table do lend some credence to the semi-popular usuage of the word "parasite" when referring to a fetus, but population size clearly does not come into play.

During my search I got the impression that the definitions of parasitism (and symbiosis) are still very difficult. As such, it may allow the term to be used more freely - though personally I'd elect not to use it all or at least sparingly. Frankly I don't believe the similarities with parasites and fetuses warrant enough motivation to overlook the differences, especially considering the widespread negative connotations associated with the word "parasite". Using the term when referring to fetuses is, in my eyes, and intentionally malign strategy to negatively portray fetuses in an attempt to push a political agenda.

Though honestly, this isn't the first time terminology has been twisted and abused.

So, concluding, I guess people can always compare fetuses to parasites, but it's a dick move and not particularly intellectually honest, as it ignores several common features associated with parasites when introducing fetuses to the group of organisms within this category. It's sort of like how a chair can be considered a table. Clearly not a table, nor intended to be used as one, but if you want it to be it can be a table. Just very stupid to use it if you actually have a table, which in this metaphor would be the wonderful expanse of the English vocabulary at one's disposal.

Let us stay on the topic of discussing abortion, and whether the pro-choice or pro-life position is preferable. Leave off-topic posts about scenarios best left for B-grade horror movies out, shall we?

Sorry if it's off-topic but I put some degree of work into this. I'll drop the subject.

[Wallenburg]

Let us stay on the topic of discussing abortion, and whether the pro-choice or pro-life position is preferable. Leave off-topic posts about scenarios best left for B-grade horror movies out, shall we?

Um, what are you talking about exactly? Do you mean that you wish us to stop talking about whether fetuses qualify as parasites?

[Godular]

Slapped Esternial's post up on the OP.

I will mention again I never specifically refer to a fetus as a parasite, only that it is parasitic-in-nature (which Swith seemed to take umbrage to and would like to see why, but maybe in TGs or something).

To try and circle this whole thing back around, it seems like a goodly portion of the argument stems on who is considered to be 'more important' in the situation. The unborn individual or the woman. The distinction in this case strikes me as a matter of opinion, but a difference of opinion should not be a reason to deny any person their fundamental rights.

If one does not wish for abortions to take place, they should find ways to make carrying an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy to term less of a burden rather than try to ban it outright.

[Galloism]

If one does not wish for abortions to take place, they should find ways to make carrying an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy to term less of a burden rather than try to ban it outright.

Expanding on this slightly, the most effective way to prevent abortion is to make sure everyone - male and female - has ready access to contraception. The second most effective way is to make sure there's a functioning social safety net so financial considerations don't weigh so heavily.

These are two things that those against abortion are generally also against (exceptions exist).

[Esternial]

Slapped Esternial's post up on the OP.

I will mention again I never specifically refer to a fetus as a parasite, only that it is parasitic-in-nature (which Swith seemed to take umbrage to and would like to see why, but maybe in TGs or something).

To try and circle this whole thing back around, it seems like a goodly portion of the argument stems on who is considered to be 'more important' in the situation. The unborn individual or the woman. The distinction in this case strikes me as a matter of opinion, but a difference of opinion should not be a reason to deny any person their fundamental rights.

If one does not wish for abortions to take place, they should find ways to make carrying an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy to term less of a burden rather than try to ban it outright.

It's not strange to consider the term "parasite" or even "parasitic-in-nature" misplaced or even offensive. Subjectively, the word is often negatively connotated, like a pest or some kind of infection.

Looking at terminology purely objectively (as in, proper definition, etc.) is certainly valuable to a debate, but it's also worth considering common connotations words have when making use of them. You're not wrong when you say fetuses exhibit some properties that parasites have as well, but it immediately compares fetuses to a negative entity. I see no point in the comparison with parasites aside from applying those negative connotations in an argument.

All my harping aside, I'd like to reiterate that I'm very much pro-choice and agree with your second and third paragraph.

[Godular]

Slapped Esternial's post up on the OP.

I will mention again I never specifically refer to a fetus as a parasite, only that it is parasitic-in-nature (which Swith seemed to take umbrage to and would like to see why, but maybe in TGs or something).

To try and circle this whole thing back around, it seems like a goodly portion of the argument stems on who is considered to be 'more important' in the situation. The unborn individual or the woman. The distinction in this case strikes me as a matter of opinion, but a difference of opinion should not be a reason to deny any person their fundamental rights.

If one does not wish for abortions to take place, they should find ways to make carrying an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy to term less of a burden rather than try to ban it outright.

It's not strange to consider the term "parasite" or even "parasitic-in-nature" misplaced or even offensive. Subjectively, the word is often negatively connotated, like a pest or some kind of infection.

Looking at terminology purely objectively (as in, proper definition, etc.) is certainly valuable to a debate, but it's also worth considering common connotations words have when making use of them. You're not wrong when you say fetuses exhibit some properties that parasites have as well, but it immediately compares fetuses to a negative entity. I see no point in the comparison with parasites aside from applying those negative connotations in an argument.

All my harping aside, I'd like to reiterate that I'm very much pro-choice and agree with your second and third paragraph.

Which is something of an issue for me, as I only tend to consider things in utterly pragmatic terms. I'm not going to avoid using a term because somebody finds it offensive, if it ACTUALLY describes the situation. That's trying to control the debate just as much as calling the fetus an 'unborn baby'. Semantics are such a huge part of the debate that I prefer to stick to purely functional applications so as to avoid bias. If that makes it seem like the 'unborn baby' is less of a saint than certain parties would like it to be, that's just reality for you. Reality is gross. Reality is ugly. Reality is.

Romanticizing it just serves to obfuscate, but also drives home the fact that the view is wholly subjective. If the woman sees an unexpected pregnancy as a basket full of kittens, that is her choice. Some folks see a basket full of kittens as the spawn of Satan (literally, even! One of my students refused to enter the classroom when I rescued a kitten from outside because she was so deathly afraid of 'em... damn near fainted when it mewed at her). One cannot expect to force a basket full of kittens on the latter type of people and expect a fairy tale result.

Sorry if that sounded like I was rambling...

[Esternial]

It's not strange to consider the term "parasite" or even "parasitic-in-nature" misplaced or even offensive. Subjectively, the word is often negatively connotated, like a pest or some kind of infection.

Looking at terminology purely objectively (as in, proper definition, etc.) is certainly valuable to a debate, but it's also worth considering common connotations words have when making use of them. You're not wrong when you say fetuses exhibit some properties that parasites have as well, but it immediately compares fetuses to a negative entity. I see no point in the comparison with parasites aside from applying those negative connotations in an argument.

All my harping aside, I'd like to reiterate that I'm very much pro-choice and agree with your second and third paragraph.

Which is something of an issue for me, as I only tend to consider things in utterly pragmatic terms. I'm not going to avoid using a term because somebody finds it offensive, if it ACTUALLY describes the situation. That's trying to control the debate just as much as calling the fetus an 'unborn baby'. Semantics are such a huge part of the debate that I prefer to stick to purely functional applications so as to avoid bias. If that makes it seem like the 'unborn baby' is less of a saint than certain parties would like it to be, that's just reality for you. It's gross. It's ugly. It is.

Romanticizing it just serves to obfuscate, but also drives home the fact that the view is wholly subjective. If the woman sees an unexpected pregnancy as a basket full of kittens, that is her choice. Some folks see a basket full of kittens as the spawn of Satan (literally, even! One of my students refused to enter the classroom when I rescued a kitten from outside because she was so deathly afraid of 'em... damn near fainted when it mewed at her). One cannot expect to force a basket full of kittens on the latter type of people and expect a fairy tale result.

Sorry if that sounded like I was rambling...

Personally I don't find that the term "parasitic(-in-nature)" quite fits the subject, considering the properties often associated with the term. It's like a big lid that covers a little pot. Certainly covers the pot but isn't really supposed to be used for that pot.

Maybe you use it pragmatically, but it's easy to understand why others might take offence. In a debate it may be easier to just avoid using certain terms and describe the specifics than risk getting off on a tangent about how that particular term is not quite suitable for that particular subject - as is illustrated on this page.

[Godular]

Which is something of an issue for me, as I only tend to consider things in utterly pragmatic terms. I'm not going to avoid using a term because somebody finds it offensive, if it ACTUALLY describes the situation. That's trying to control the debate just as much as calling the fetus an 'unborn baby'. Semantics are such a huge part of the debate that I prefer to stick to purely functional applications so as to avoid bias. If that makes it seem like the 'unborn baby' is less of a saint than certain parties would like it to be, that's just reality for you. It's gross. It's ugly. It is.

Romanticizing it just serves to obfuscate, but also drives home the fact that the view is wholly subjective. If the woman sees an unexpected pregnancy as a basket full of kittens, that is her choice. Some folks see a basket full of kittens as the spawn of Satan (literally, even! One of my students refused to enter the classroom when I rescued a kitten from outside because she was so deathly afraid of 'em... damn near fainted when it mewed at her). One cannot expect to force a basket full of kittens on the latter type of people and expect a fairy tale result.

Sorry if that sounded like I was rambling...

Personally I don't find that the term "parasitic(-in-nature)" quite fits the subject, considering the properties often associated with the term. It's like a big lid that covers a little pot. Certainly covers the pot but isn't really supposed to be used for that pot.

Maybe you use it pragmatically, but it's easy to understand why others might take offence. In a debate it may be easier to just avoid using certain terms and describe the specifics than risk getting off on a tangent about how that particular term is not quite suitable for that particular subject - as is illustrated on this page.

Truth be told, I only use the phrase when somebody actually asks me whether I consider the fetus a parasite. Outside of that, I speak only in terms of raw facts. Sometimes my facts are incorrect, as you were so kind to indicate in your most gracious rebuttal of one of my prior points.

*cough*

But I consider this as much a learning experience as a discussion. I'll accept the occasional foot in my mouth. It helps me remember not to make the same mistake again.