Do we have the right to remove parasites?

Question

Since abortion can apparently only be justified by referring to fetuses (i.e. babies in the womb) as parasites or tumors or by viewing the mother as a temporary chimera and noting that we have an apparent right to "destroy" those who are dependent on us (but are obviously genetically distinct), does that mean we have the right to destroy those who are dependent on others by virtue of social necessity? For example, do we have the right to destroy the mentally disabled or the poor, since they also fit the dictionary definition of "parasite"?

Am I the only one who sees the danger in dehumanizing humanity in this way?

Rebel F: The definition of a parasite is not something that is dependent on a single host. It is merely something that is dependent on another host. If your justification for abortion is based on the idea that parasites are dependent on single hosts, then your reasoning is faulty.

J_Maverick: The genetic code of a fetus is distinct from its mother at conception. I therefore asked how a mother can consider it to be "part of her body" when it is genetically distinct. The answers overwhelmingly suggested that a fetus must be viewed as a parasite (or tumor or other dehumanizing description). Well if we can destroy genetically distinct parasites, then why not the disabled?

Rebel F: It seems then that you agree with my question. We apparently DO have the right to destroy those that are dependent on us. Am I reading that right?

maybe: There's already a natural method for this. It's called "birth".

Rebel F: You never truly transfer dependency. If you transfer your elderly parents to a nursing home, then they are still dependent on you financially (directly or indirectly by the state) for their survival. By this reasoning, it seems reasonable that you (or society) has the inherent right to "destroy" them.

Rebel F: You don't have to destroy a baby to cease its dependence on you either. You only have to give birth to it. So I'm still failing to see why we can't simply dispose of those who are depdendent on society.

Ember Halo: Your snippity comment equates a human to a tapeworm and highlights the absurdity of the feminist ethic.

Ember Halo: Perhaps you could explain how, except in the exceptionally rare case of rape, pregnancy is against the will of the mother. It takes a very willing and explicit act that knowingly leads to pregnancy in order to get pregnant.

wendy g: What constitutes a "potential person" vs. a "person". My first memory isn't until I was several years old. Does that mean that I didn't possess consciousness and therefore was not a "person" while I was an infant? If it's merely the potential viability outside the womb, doesn't that make a "person" dependent on the capabilities of medicine? So a fetus that you would contend is not a "person" today could, through technological advancements be considered a "person" in a decade?

An unfertilized egg and sperm constitute a potential person. Once they join, they become a genetically distinct entity with human DNA. According to genetics, it becomes a "person". Any other measure is completely arbitrary, based in politics and likely flawed.

Answer 1

No, you are not the only one to see it. Working in the medical field (EMT) I see a lot of nursing home patients neglected and mistreated by both family and staff.

Why?

Because they are a "burden". No longer of productive use, they simply exist.

While many of them are unable to communicate, feed themselves, etc. they are still human and still feel emotion. I know. I talk to them kindly and try to be as gentle as possible when moving them for transport, and they respond. Others- both my coworkers and nursing staff at the homes- are not so compassionate. They look at these people as "parasites".

And in answer to the young lady who suggested you get a vasectomy, I suggest any woman who does not want a child keep her legs together. There is NEVER a reason for abortion. If the child is handicapped, so be it. If you can't afford a child, let someone who wants a child adopt it. There are thousands of people waiting for a child, but because the abortion industry (yes, it's big business) kills thousands of babies, those parents-to-be either wait for years or simply cannot afford to adopt because of supply and demand issues.

Sad, but true. We are dehumanizing humans while humanizing animals and making laws to protect them.

Yes, I think animals deserve protection, and we should stop poaching and illegal killing of animals, but we also need to stop killing each other in the form of abortion.

'Nuff said.


CATGIRL: You go girl!!!!!

A wise man once said "You cannot destroy a society from without until it destroys itself from within".

To destroy human life within the womb is to destroy human society without a thought.

Answer 2

The problem with your assertion is that you do not understand the difference between a PERSON (disabled or not), and a POTENTIAL person. Science, and a good 12th grade biology book, can help you make these distinctions. I suggest Amazon.com.

EDIT-Are you now confusing consciousness with memory? They are two distinct things; just because you have no memory of those times, does not mean you had no consciousness. Does a person who has lost their memory through a head trauma lose their person-hood? A fertilized egg may have a genetic code, but if a "genetic code" is all it takes, then what separates people from (all) other organisms with a genetic code? By your criteria, since a genetic code is all that is required, fleas should have the same rights and consideration as human beings.

Answer 3

Joe- you have got plenty greater fulfillment QTing all new fish till now including them into your important tank. an oz. of prevention is worth a pound of treatment. i would not recommend preserving fish except you have the money to establish a QT tank as you will finally want it! That being suggested, a cleanser shrimp will help do away with parasites, yet whitespot -Ich- is interior the water column besides as on the fish. for sure, a shrimp won't help the finished project. You have been somewhat magnificent that tangs are in possibility of white spot. whether you get it decrease than administration with that one fish, every time you upload yet another without QTing, the project would desire to stand up repeatedly. Fish can't fend off ailment long term without being in possibility of different secondary infections, so that's a raffle doing it the kind you're idealizing. i desire that facilitates.

Answer 4

I am pro abortion in that I am prochoice but I would not dream of calling a foetus a parasite (though I suppose, broadly speaking it is). I can even call it a baby because at the end of the day whatever we call it it is the potential for life. I say potential becuase there is no guarantee that that baby would make it anyway.
I have seen the term parasite used here, but not anywhere else - it is an unnecessarily harsh term - like the opposite end of the scale to calling them 'gifts from god', which I find equally unpleasant for totally different reasons

Answer 5

You should not be obligated to continue a pregnancy just so you can provide a healthy white newborn to one of those thousands of couples waiting to adopt children. Instead of debating about abortion, let's instead focus our energies to the thousands of children who are already here and are looking for people to adopt them. Nobody wants them because they are too old, have the "wrong" skin color, or have handicaps Where are the thousands of couples who are literally waiting for years to adopt? Why don't these children get adopted? My daughter used to have a classmate who was one of these older, less desirable children. He went into foster care after his mother died when he was four years old and none of his other relatives wanted him. For years, he used to attend "adoption fairs" and he hated them. That was because couples would look right past him and go for the younger children. He didn't exist as far as they were concerned. So instead of quibbling about abortion, why not work to help children like this boy so they have a better chance at growing up without being bounced from foster home to foster home?

Answer 6

Since when did abortion debate turn into a linguistic game? Apparently you do not understand that the issue of abortion is one of when human life begins. What word is used to describe something before it is said to be a human life has nothing at all to do with other applications of the same word. The issue is when human life begins. Depending on the perspective, that might be at fertilization, implantation, viability, birth, baptism or naming, or age of reason.

Edit: Clearly I'm not getting through to you. The abortion debate is about when human life begins. That's it. If a person defines human life as beginning at birth and their local legal definition does not present a different interpretation, they are free to do as they please with whatever they want to call the thing which is not yet a human life. I really don't know how to make this any simpler than that. Abortion debate = question of when human life begins.

Answer 7

no, you'll have to keep those tapeworms. sorry. i can tell they're effecting your disposition, but its totally immoral to kill them, as they're genetically distinct creatures...

you don't really care about nor listen to any viewpoint but your own, so what does it really matter what i say anyhow? :-P
btw, WTF is "feminist ethic"??

btw, don't you think it's a bit dehumanizing to force a person to basically be breeding chattle against their will? to force a person to give up their body to another being, in an act that will ultimately change the state of their body forever, make them quite miserable for most of a year, and possibly kill them? not to mention, will you also have said person watched for the duration, so that they not only get expensive prenatal care, but also don't partake in drugs & risky behavior that could deform or kill the unwanted & unloved fetus? and who will pay the thousands & thousands of dollars for the prenatal care? the delivery? who will pay tens of thousands for the possibly malformed baby to be in NICU & get corrective surgery or treatment that sorta brings them back to normal?

Answer 8

these are all dependents that can be cared for by anyone inclined to do so. the same is not so of a fetus until it is past a certain point in the gestational period.

your argument has been made before, by those with a better grip on logic and manipulation of fact than you

Answer 9

I never much had any opinion about that Roe versus Wade thing; could never bring myself to believe in their theory that a baby while in the womb is a part of a woman's body. What I believe is that when that baby lies in our body; it's only a temporary guest, which will leave when the time is right. After it leaves the only parts of us it is, are an emotional and genetic part and that is it. Our arms, legs, wombs, ovaries, fallopian tubes are all a part of us. A baby is not; it is only a temporary guest until it "gets on its feet". Yet to some people, especially those who don't have a concrete reason for an abortion that's a burden cause they don't want to be bothered,
A sure sign of pure selfishness if you ask me.

Answer 10

Maybe you should direct your energy toward developing a safe and reliable methods of transferring unwanted fetuses from unwilling hosts to willing surrogate wombs?

Answer 11

You are confused. A disabled person is different because they can be cared for by ANYBODY. Therefore, whoever cares for them has CHOSEN to care for them. So, while they might still *technically* be a parasite, they are being cared for by a willing "host"...and if the host is willing, then that's fine. If the "host" is unwilling, they can pass the disabled person along to someone else, whether that be a nursing home, another family member, whatever.

A fetus is different. A fetus can depend on ONLY one person. And if that person is unwilling, then she should be able to dispose of that parasite. If she is unwilling, she has no way to "pass it along" to someone else, so she aborts it. If she is willing, then once again she is a willing host and that's fine.


EDIT: You are getting too caught up in the "definition" of parasites. Aren't you aware that there are hundreds of different definitions of a parasite? The point here is WILLINGNESS. Another definition of "parasites" is this:

"One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return."

Now, this could include anybody, a fetus or even a full-grown person, who takes advantage of another. If you are WILLING to let that person take advantage of you, then it's not a problem. If you are NOT WILLING for that person to take advantage of you, then it IS a problem, and you have a right to stop it.


EDIT:

"Rebel F: It seems then that you agree with my question. We apparently DO have the right to destroy those that are dependent on us. Am I reading that right?"

No. You do not have the right to "destroy" an adult person or even an infant, because that would be highly superfluous. In order to stop their parasitism of you, you need only to stop catering to them. For a child or infant, that can be giving them up for adoption, for an adult, that can be slamming the door in their face when they come over asking for money, not answering their calls, filing a restraining order, etc. If it is a disabled person, like I said, you can let another family member or nursing home take over their care. The point is, in all of these cases, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DESTROY THEM to stop them from being dependent on you, and to do so would be highly excessive (akin to gunning someone down in the streets because they snatched your umbrella). With a fetus, that is the ONLY way to get them to stop being dependent on you.

EDIT:

Raj, by your logic, we should also kill all school-age children, because we all pay taxes to send them to school and help provide their school lunches. If we did that, we'd have no future as a civilization. There is a big difference between hijacking someone's body, and using up a little bit of their money for the betterment of society. Also, there is a big difference between a fetus, and an actual human person with thoughts, emotions, feelings, and a consciousness of self.