Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
See the other thread for further arguments on the subject. I don't care whether you accept the fact or not.
I've stated twice why born humans aren't biologically parasites; if you want to ignore the reason, feel free.
I do, however, note that once again you have to resort to insulting me because you can't make your point otherwise. That's several insults, a false accusation, and failed attempts to tell me my motives. You really should stick to discussing the issues, rather than getting angry and attacking those who refuse to disagree with you.
I have repeatedly stated I don't care whether you recognise the fact or not.based on your evasion of the question it seems you are unable to provide any legimate info on a fetus being a parasite. And thus it is concluded you know nothing of what a fetus is. I already looked at the other thread. And Im still waiting for a science book or medical book that says a fetus is a parasite. Until then it is obviously not a fact , so you really need to recant your ignorant statement..
I have repeatedly stated I don't care whether you recognise the fact or not.
I'm still waiting for an apology from you for your repeated insults and false accusations. I have a feeling I'll wait a long time.
Whoa dude time to call in the Science Police, 'cause we're getting out of hand. Time to clear things up:biologically, we are all parasites. we cannot survive without other preying on other organisms. we leech off God's green earth everyday. that blows the fetuses are parasites arguement right out of the water.
He's not spending time addressing this because even a cursory search on this forum will provide you with the evidence you're looking for.
Here are the links though. Do your own homework.
http://christianforums.com/t2173602-fetus-not-parasite-by-definition.html
http://christianforums.com/t2174081-a-fair-poll-on-the-question-of-fetus-as-parasite.html
http://christianforums.com/t2167866-is-the-human-fetus-a-parasite.html
The point behind reminding people that a fetus is indeed a parasite is so we don't lose sight of the biological relationship it has with the mother... i.e., the detrimental impact it has on her body.
Oops. Maybe I was thinking of the telephone . . .The light bulb is from the 19th century ya tard!
Not only have I read them completely, I argued in each of them. You've obviously done neither.And the first one provides a definition on why a fetus is indeed NOT a parasite. The rest of the thread is just ignorant opinions from the reprobates. Still,, the definition stands.. Do you even read what you post?? In order to be a parasite there must be 2 DIFFERENT species.. A baby and her mother are the SAME species.. Thus the fetus is not a parasite by definition. Nor does any science of health book even claim a fetus is a parasite. You really need to recant your statements because it makes you look like an uneducated idiot..
Oops. Maybe I was thinking of the telephone . . .
Never mind . . .
Not only have I read them completely, I argued in each of them. You've obviously done neither.
Read posts by Gladiatrix in those threads. She thoroughly manhandles fundies far sharper than you on this topic.
The bottomline is, 1. The distinction that it must be a different species is an arbitrary one, i.e. it's meaningless, and 2. Many medical/biological deffinitions don't have the species qualification in their deffinition.
Hahaha, nice try, but mirrors are not from the 20th century either.Also 19th Century, unless the pictures of Rutherford B. Hayes as the first President to use one are faked according to those opposed to progress.
You've been shown to be wrong on the facts twice in a very short time. Might be a good time for reflection.
So, women finally breaking the bonds of second-class citizenship, and all that entails, boils down to "sex-for-fun"?Sorry, but sex-for-fun takes a back seat to vaccinations for polio.
Now you're just making stuff up. Initially Texas Lynn claimed that "sex as an expression of love" was possibly the greatest break through in the 20th century. Call me crazy, but when I hear "sex as an expression of love" it means "sex as an expression of love" or, closely "sex for fun". To me "sex as an expression of love" does not even resemble "women finally breaking the bonds of second-class citizenship" any more than it means "men finally getting to be equal as women become drafted to the military just like them".So, women finally breaking the bonds of second-class citizenship, and all that entails, boils down to "sex-for-fun"?
No wonder men and women have so much trouble communicating...
Again, like a petulant child with his fingers in his ears you ignore that there are other deffinitions where being of a different species isn't a requirement.It dosen't matter if you think its an arbitrary one. It still shows in the definition of what a parasitic relationship is. And by definition a fetus is not. You can't twist around definitions..
And they do have classifications. Such as the tapeworms, ringworms, fleas, and mosqitoes.
The claim that a fetus is a parasite is only an emotional and uneducated claim. But it is obviously not fact by definition..
Hahaha, nice try, but mirrors are not from the 20th century either.
So, women finally breaking the bonds of second-class citizenship, and all that entails, boils down to "sex-for-fun"?
No wonder men and women have so much trouble communicating...
Okay, you know it might be better if we only use medically or legally defined words in this discussion. Some words like parasite and hostile are very triggering and cause nothing except emotional responses.
Since no one has provided a medical source that the fetus is a parasite, why don't we just stop using that word?
I mean, there are plenty of other words that are both biological, legally, and medically correct such as embryo and fetus.
So, unless the Pro-Choice folks are just TRYING to make an emotional argument, I think it would be wise to stop using those words. If there are any other words that are triggering, why don't we all just agree to not use those as well.
Afterall, there are some rules in this forum which say that you have to cite a source for your argument or Scripture depending on the circumstances. Can we please at least try to talk about this without triggering each other?
Lisa
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?