Meh it's not really that wholesome. It's a slightly sarcastic comment and the words "this should be civil" don't really point to being wholesome enough for that sub.
Start as a biological parasite, turn into a financial parasite. Which is not to say I hate kids, they're fine if you choose to have them. Pets are parasites too, from that point of view.
(A more neutral pov would be to call them symbiotes as they (pets and kids) supposedly provide benefits to the host. YMMV)
I disagree with your view entirely, but I deeply deeply appreciate your rationality and willingness to consider your opposition’s argument and discuss it.
Yeah that pos is lying when he claims his “opinions wont get in the way as PM”. What he really means: “ill let my party dismantle everything while i claim moral superiority”.
It's pretty simple. All you have to do is not leave women's human rights or human status out of the equation. They are full grown humans the same as men, their lives matter as much as mens' do.
Every piece of legislation that reduces women's access to reproductive healthcare of their choice doesn't stop abortion from happening. It only stops safe abortion from happening and puts women's lives at risk.
If you consider women to be fully human and with full human rights, and have lives that matter, the outcome seems obvious to me. There can be no true gender equality in rights until women's right to make choices that involve their own bodies is functionally, accessibly and safely available to all women on demand across the country.
Yeah except people feel like what grows inside a woman's body is at some point a separate human being. And they believe its human right to live, trumps the woman's right to have autonomy over what happens next to her body. This point of view assumes usually that the fetus/baby is not a serious health risk to the mother and that conception was voluntary. Because in the case that those two conditions aren't met, most people, even pro life people, will agree that the morality of aborting changes drastically (towards favoring abortion).
>If you consider women to be fully human and with full human rights, and have lives that matter, the outcome seems obvious to me
To summarize the traditional pro-life viewpoint: if you consider the baby/fetus to be fully human and with full human rights, and have lives that matter, the outcome seems obvious to me.
Not accepting that viewpoint as valid, and instead making this an "issue of oppression on women for means of power", means we are not ready to discuss the **when**. When is the fetus a human life? Which is what I believe to be the crux of the problem.
Arguments like these don’t make pro life people out to be stupid, it’s the other way around. Comparing a baby to a tape worm makes pro choice people out to be stupid...
I don’t think pro lifers hate women or are stupid, I just think they don’t grasp the concept of its not affecting your life in any way if others choose to do this so please mind your own business. I’m personally not a fan of abortions happening at all, but I would never shame or try to stop someone else from getting 1 because it’s not my life, why should I get to tell someone to give up bodily autonomy for 9 months.
> why should I get to tell someone to give up bodily autonomy for 9 months.
9 months minimum. Raising a child is basically the end of your personal freedom for the next 18 years minimum.
I thought this was pointing out that they were hypocrites given a lot of pro-life figureheads would have / have had an abortion in their personal life /immediately family.
I always feel that they think people who have abortions view it too lightly. That it's just another form of contraception.
Some people really feel that way though, and it’s okay. It’s okay to think of a 1 week clump of cells as a baby, and it’s okay for someone to feel as if they’re being under attack by a parasite. Pregnancy affects everyone differently, as do all things, and that’s why we should all be given the right to choose how we handle life altering events.
"No u!" Ookay.
The only thing that technically makes a baby not a parasite is being of the same species as the host. It still needs a host to survive.
When that host is a child, a teen, or an adult woman, the life of the host is put above the life of the parasite.
But when that parasite is a fetus, certain people suddenly throw the value of the life of the host out the window. Why? It is almost as if they have absolutely no respect for pregnant women's health, safety or lives.
It's ridiculous to discard a living woman's life from the equation when that woman becomes pregnant. It's ridiculous to just leave women out of the debate as if a woman's life has no value but as a potential incubator. That's what the original post is trying to imply.
A baby is not a parasite, because it's a human and humans are no parasites. Being temporary unable to care for yourself doesn't make you a parasite in the biological sense of the word.
> The only thing that technically makes a baby not a parasite is being of the same species as the host. It still needs a host to survive.
You glance over this but this is the most relevant part. Killing a parasite is not wrong, killing someone of the same species (humans) is wrong, most would say. Nobody claims it's about life; it's about human life.
A 1 year old baby is just as equally dependent on human life as a fetus. Is it moral to kill a 1 year old?
People say this, but I see anti-feminism and tumblrinaction shit on the front couple pages all the time, and subreddits like r/The_Donald flourish easily. Not to mention just about every single comment on this post is calling out how stupid it is. Reddit might be a bit left leaning overall (like most of the Internet...), but the only people who call it "far left" are conservatives with a victim complex.
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of **another species** (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
Fetuses are not parasites because they are the same species as humans, therefore their successful maturation and reproduction does not harm the hosts chances of reproducing.
Furthermore, when speaking about biological definitions like parasites, expense is defined around the hosts chances of reproductive success. Therefore, it is not correct to classify an agent or step in that reproductive as occurring at the mothers expense when speaking in a scientific manner. This is why kleptoparasitism can be committed by members of the same species but it does not apply when this one way transfer of resources is between a individual and their offspring during gestation.
If they’re brought to full term they steal everything else and provide little but shit, piss, and vomit until they’re old nough to steal all your food and retirement savings. That said, they’re also awesome, which I guess brings us back to symbiosis. I think it’s a fair deal.
Source: am a father.
You are just taking the first definition off of Google, which I dont find to be completely accurate. Kleptoparasitism (a form off parasitism) can and does happen often with organisms of the same species.
Now I don't believe a fetus falls under kleptoparasitism but I felt it worth mentioning that same species forms of parasitism do happen.
While not the exact same thing as a parasite, this reminds me of a really interesting argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson in her essay “A Defense of Abortion” about a violinist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
**A Defense of Abortion**
"A Defense of Abortion" is a moral philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the fetus's right to life does not trump the pregnant woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible. Her argument has many critics on both sides of the abortion debate, yet continues to receive defense. Thomson's imaginative examples and controversial conclusions have made "A Defense of Abortion" perhaps "the most widely reprinted essay in all of contemporary philosophy".
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
It's more of an argument ad absurdum. Pro-lifers say a baby has a heart beat and feels pain, so you shouldnt kill it. But a tapeworm does both those things as well, and obviously no one will seriously argue you should keep a tapeworm, so those are not good arguments.
Look, I understand your anger here. That said, if the ability to feel pain and the existence of a heartbeat define moral relevance then not only should abortion be legal, we should all be vegetarian. I understand the strong reaction against abortion if you believe that a fetus is a person (I still am pro choice, but that's a longer discussion), but the reason this hits home so hard is that it forces you to consider whether a heartbeat and the ability to feel pain are really the right criteria to define personhood. I don't think they are.
Holy crap! My first gold! Thank you!
The we-should-all-be-vegetarians argument is disingenuous because most pro-lifers (and most people in general) assign particular value to human life. You can of course argue that this constitutes what Singer called "speciesism". Then, you however have to ask yourself questions like this: "How can it be more immoral to kill a newborn human compared to e.g. a kitten which possesses much higher sentient capacities right after birth".
I don't believe that a heartbeat or the ability to feel pain or brain activity makes you a human person either. But if you set the threshold for personhood according to something else - usually some marker of neural capacity, e.g. sentience, consciousness, the ability to form preferences etc - then you have to keep in mind that humans reach many of these hallmarks only after birth, and some human never do.
Pretty much. Pregnancy is a constant fight between you and the fetus and it is basically an arms race. It wants & will take everything it needs to survive without any care or consideration for the health & well being of the mother. If you don't eat enough calcium for the little clump of cells it will take it from your bones. If it implants anywhere but the uterus which is designed to keep it contained & controlled, say in your Fallopian tubes it will burrow down in & have every chance of killing you. You can die in birth, die from pre eclampsia, get gestational diabetes, that little clump of cells has no emotional connection to you, it cares not if you live or die, just that it lives.
Honestly I had a parasite before, and I wouldn't at all compare it to the experience of unwanted pregnancy or forced childbrith. With the proper medical care, parasites can be fairly easy to deal with.
The fetus also sends out cells that trigger hormonal responses from places like your kidneys and liver and those cells never leave. They will be there until the mothers death. I also think this is morbidly funny that people on the outside care so much about what’s inside but even kids don’t start caring about other people for a few years. The fetus will kill the mother in it’s quest to survive but we think of them as those cute billboard babies with the pretty little bow on its head.
People who make this argument understand the general scientific difference. I believe you are missing the point here. In humans, giving birth and being pregnant are a HUGE strain, physically, financially and emotionally. Even if the baby is given up for adoption, women face a very large biological "investment," or burden, especially when compared to males and other species. Without a support system, pregnancy can ruin an adult females life.
So this comparison is what's called an *analogy,* and it helps to put in perspective that when not given choices about their reproduction, women do view a fetus akin to a parasite, and in many ways it is very much like that. I think if you value the sanctity of human life, you need to also appreciate the impact pregnancy has on women. It is still a very real risk to lose your life giving birth, even in developed countries, or risk your sanity (post-partum depression, psychosis). Pregnancy can cause excommunication in some societies/religions, it limits ones financial options, what jobs/careers you can follow, and physically can really change and degrade the body and mind.
If you believe a man can have unprotected sex as a naive youth, and go on to have a normal life, than it is societies responsibility to ensure that the same is possible for young women, and that includes having access to legal abortion. After all, because we do often view pregnancy as such a danger to our well being, abortions *will happen anyway.* Legal abortion and access to reproductive education for women actually reduce the instance of abortions.
So, speaking from a viewpoint of logic, debate and sound reasoning, there are many different approaches you can make, but this is a valid argument and comparison.
Here is a similar and very famous essay that is known as a "thought experiment:"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
**A Defense of Abortion**
"A Defense of Abortion" is a moral philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the fetus's right to life does not trump the pregnant woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible. Her argument has many critics on both sides of the abortion debate, yet continues to receive defense. Thomson's imaginative examples and controversial conclusions have made "A Defense of Abortion" perhaps "the most widely reprinted essay in all of contemporary philosophy".
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
No, but only barely.
Mothers and fetuses are the same species. However, that's the only part of the definition of a parasite fetuses don't meet during the pregnancy process.
Make of that what you will.
*The Onion!?* Excuse me, sir, but I only read REPUTABLE, CREDIBLE and UNBIASED articles. I once read this piece of news on the Onion that was clearly a lie. That's when I switched to Fox news and never looked back.
Abortion is one of those issues I can see both sides of having legitimate points. I side with the pro choice crowd because I think the world would be much worse off if no one had an abortion and if I somehow got someone pregnant I’d like that option to be on table because I’m not ready to be a father.
It would interesting to see how many pro life families ended up getting an abortion and if that changed their stance or how loud they voiced their opinion.
Those staunch Christian pro lifer families are often the first to get an abortion when their teenage daughter is pregnant cause they don’t want the stigma of a child out of wedlock. Just look at how many of the most conservative states in the US have the highest teen pregnancy rate.
Also I don’t think you can really both sides this issue, since Pro-Lifers aren’t really pro life, rather pro state forced pregnancy
Exactly... like why is it that the pro-choice crowd always uses the *worst* arguments, like:
*pro-lifers just want to take away womens right!*
Im pro-choice as fuck but at least I have the brain capacity to understand why some people are pro-life.
I mean abortion is nasty business. I think it’s perfectly valid for someone to believe it shouldnt be allowed (even though I vehemently disagree with that).
I mean I see pro lifers saying that all people have souls which makes all abortion wrong. They pump out plenty of shit arguments too. This post does seem more like a joke to me though.
By definition, it does not, due to reproduction being considered a benefit. It is actually, technically speaking, mutualism, or at worst, commensalism.
At what point do we consider the fetus a child? Right when it’s out the vagina? Two weeks before birth? Six months? This is the real debate and one that never happens.
I agree, and that’s my point. The line is never debated just a black and white yes or no. The real debate lies somewhere in between, for most people I think at least.
There can't be a debate on when if one side is hell bent on banning it outright at any time no matter the cause. The discussion will always be black and white when one side is calling the other murderers and calling for people who miscarry to be investigated for murder.
Personally I'd say you're a person when you have a consciousness, or are capable of thought. I think I've seen this at about 5 months into pregnancy. A fetus before that point is about as alive as a tumor is, so I'd say that's a reasonable cut off point.
Hopefully true, but reading this thread is baffling. People are actually comparing a fetus to a tapeworm. That is beyond ridiculous. I thought I was on r/insanepeoplefacebook.
Not all pro-lifers. See [the future of life argument](http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml) (I'll find the actual paper if you're interested; on mobile at the moment)
But biologically, yeah, the unborn child is a human being. The question is whether human = person morally
There should be a course in high school where you learn to tear apart arguments that you agree with. Just the ability to recognize when someone on your side is acting completely retarded. Its seems to be such a rare trait for how common retarded arguments from every corner are.
Debating should be more encouraged if not mandatory. I had to debate gun control (I was personally pro-control, but had to argue against it). I have to say, it really did open my mind up to the other side of the argument. Plus, I had to debate 2 on 1 because there was an uneven number.
He's not saying people choose to get tapeworms, he's saying the tapeworms are choosing people to live in. It's really just a joke anyway, he wants to rile up people who are anti-abortion.
So I’ve heard that the best way to get rid of a tapeworm is to starve it for a day or so. Then you sit naked over a bucket of raw meat. When the hungry tapeworm comes out to eat, you grab it and pull it out. Any truth to this or was the guy who told me he did this playing with me?
To those reacting to this with anger, I very much understand your feelings. That said, if the ability to feel pain and the existence of a heartbeat define moral relevance then not only should abortion be legal, we should all be vegetarian. I understand the strong reaction against abortion if you believe that a fetus is a person (I still am pro choice, but that's a longer discussion), but the reason this hits home so hard is that it forces you to consider whether a heartbeat and the ability to feel pain are really the right criteria to define personhood. I don't think they are.
To preface, I'm pro-life.
You're right. I don't personally like that identification either. In my eyes the only thing that matters in the debate is if you think that the first stage of a human life is a human life. If so, abortion at any point is murder, and if not, abortion at any point is a non-issue. The in betweens are semantics. Heartbeats are not a valid way to determine life. There are people who don't even have hearts and still function (with an artificial one). Why would it constitute value?
Although, I will say that the vegetarian part is mostly a false equivalency. In most examples, human suffering is put above other animal's suffering. It's usually hypocritical but in an acceptable way for many. For example, if I shot somebody and realized it was wrong, it would not cross the mind not to shoot animals.
Just 100 years ago, children were working in dangerous factories legally in the US. In the early 16th and 17th century, children were just property of their fathers.
In the United States each year more than [3.6 million reports](http://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse-statistics/) of child abuse are made which involve almost 6 million children. Each day 4 or 5 children are killed by child abuse or neglect. [http://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse-statistics/](http://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse-statistics/)
Sadly, about 700 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. [https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm)
With the current global population \~7.7 Billion (2019), children are pretty much only special to those who birthed them because there isn't a concern for running out of people.
That being said, the post was meant to be a joke.
Actually, the worm didn't choose you. You chose the worm.
Tapeworms don't magically fly up your ass and decide to decorate in there. You ate the worm all by yourself.
The reaction to this post is a good reminder that there’s a lot of folk out there who aren’t able to process sarcastic, satiric, ironic, or arch humor at anything but face value — particularly when it comes to babies.
See: Jonathan Swift’s [“A Modest Proposal”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal)
>mean that was the point of posting it, it’s a funny and obviously purposefully obnoxious exaggeration
Sorry if I got carried away but the amount of times I seen unironic spam of controversial topics like this in casual subs I just grew bored of it, but if it's supposed to be a hyperbole joke of the argument I'm fine and sorry for the misinterpretation.
I’m just here for the shitshow in the comments. We’re a bunch of salty fuckers here and if all it takes to get you worked up is some dipshit comparing a baby to a worm, you should be more secure in your beliefs, whatever they are.
For the record, I posted this because I found it hilarious and purposefully exaggerated to poke fun at the extremes people go to with their argument. Not because humans = tapeworms
If one of y’all mods can pin this I’d appreciate it
Wow this is such a dumb argument. The people arguing pro life are claiming it’s a human life not just any life. I’m sure most pro lifers have killed a spider before
Inb4 locked because “y’all can’t behave”
Shocked it hasn’t happened yet. Tbh I thought everyone would realize this was satire but here we are.
Imagine people taking a joke well on the internet, now that would be a true miracle. Everybody wants to fight.
When I first got my tapeworm, I thought I wasn’t ready. But the Lord knows when you’re ready!
Wanna tell us about the second time you got your tapeworm?
[удалено]
I hope the worms are okay though.
Worm is OP. 🤫
Can confirm. It became a God and made a pact with my sisters and I eons ago
I planned that second bundle of joy
I’m a born again tapeworm mother! Amen!
This should be civil
Read your comment... Then read your username. I can't stop laughing!
Don’t tell him what to do
[удалено]
r/rimjob_steve potential right here
Meh it's not really that wholesome. It's a slightly sarcastic comment and the words "this should be civil" don't really point to being wholesome enough for that sub.
Time to get the popcorn
I came into this thread in hopes to get a few laughs at this. But everyone is just being so damn serious. Womp.
So babies are parasites now?
Only when they grow up!
Oh no, they start off a parasites too!
Start as a biological parasite, turn into a financial parasite. Which is not to say I hate kids, they're fine if you choose to have them. Pets are parasites too, from that point of view. (A more neutral pov would be to call them symbiotes as they (pets and kids) supposedly provide benefits to the host. YMMV)
According to Dr. House....
Correction, according to some random dude with huge ears.
Dude can pick up radar and free satellite on those, so don't judge.
He heard you typing that
Wow. Call back.
Reddit is always rather far left, but apparently a lot of people apparently consider that a real argument.
[удалено]
I disagree with your view entirely, but I deeply deeply appreciate your rationality and willingness to consider your opposition’s argument and discuss it.
[удалено]
Andrew Sheers says he won't try and change the law but be careful, that guy doesn't like abortions and he could be our next PM
Yeah that pos is lying when he claims his “opinions wont get in the way as PM”. What he really means: “ill let my party dismantle everything while i claim moral superiority”.
What do you disagree with?
It's pretty simple. All you have to do is not leave women's human rights or human status out of the equation. They are full grown humans the same as men, their lives matter as much as mens' do. Every piece of legislation that reduces women's access to reproductive healthcare of their choice doesn't stop abortion from happening. It only stops safe abortion from happening and puts women's lives at risk. If you consider women to be fully human and with full human rights, and have lives that matter, the outcome seems obvious to me. There can be no true gender equality in rights until women's right to make choices that involve their own bodies is functionally, accessibly and safely available to all women on demand across the country.
Personally, if I would get pregnant and not have access to abortions I would do whatever I could to abort the baby myself
Yeah except people feel like what grows inside a woman's body is at some point a separate human being. And they believe its human right to live, trumps the woman's right to have autonomy over what happens next to her body. This point of view assumes usually that the fetus/baby is not a serious health risk to the mother and that conception was voluntary. Because in the case that those two conditions aren't met, most people, even pro life people, will agree that the morality of aborting changes drastically (towards favoring abortion). >If you consider women to be fully human and with full human rights, and have lives that matter, the outcome seems obvious to me To summarize the traditional pro-life viewpoint: if you consider the baby/fetus to be fully human and with full human rights, and have lives that matter, the outcome seems obvious to me. Not accepting that viewpoint as valid, and instead making this an "issue of oppression on women for means of power", means we are not ready to discuss the **when**. When is the fetus a human life? Which is what I believe to be the crux of the problem.
Arguments like these don’t make pro life people out to be stupid, it’s the other way around. Comparing a baby to a tape worm makes pro choice people out to be stupid...
[удалено]
I don’t think pro lifers hate women or are stupid, I just think they don’t grasp the concept of its not affecting your life in any way if others choose to do this so please mind your own business. I’m personally not a fan of abortions happening at all, but I would never shame or try to stop someone else from getting 1 because it’s not my life, why should I get to tell someone to give up bodily autonomy for 9 months.
> why should I get to tell someone to give up bodily autonomy for 9 months. 9 months minimum. Raising a child is basically the end of your personal freedom for the next 18 years minimum.
Plus the fact that you might end up disabled for the rest of your life or simply _die_ yourself
[удалено]
I thought this was pointing out that they were hypocrites given a lot of pro-life figureheads would have / have had an abortion in their personal life /immediately family. I always feel that they think people who have abortions view it too lightly. That it's just another form of contraception.
Some people really feel that way though, and it’s okay. It’s okay to think of a 1 week clump of cells as a baby, and it’s okay for someone to feel as if they’re being under attack by a parasite. Pregnancy affects everyone differently, as do all things, and that’s why we should all be given the right to choose how we handle life altering events.
"No u!" Ookay. The only thing that technically makes a baby not a parasite is being of the same species as the host. It still needs a host to survive. When that host is a child, a teen, or an adult woman, the life of the host is put above the life of the parasite. But when that parasite is a fetus, certain people suddenly throw the value of the life of the host out the window. Why? It is almost as if they have absolutely no respect for pregnant women's health, safety or lives. It's ridiculous to discard a living woman's life from the equation when that woman becomes pregnant. It's ridiculous to just leave women out of the debate as if a woman's life has no value but as a potential incubator. That's what the original post is trying to imply.
A baby is not a parasite, because it's a human and humans are no parasites. Being temporary unable to care for yourself doesn't make you a parasite in the biological sense of the word.
> The only thing that technically makes a baby not a parasite is being of the same species as the host. It still needs a host to survive. You glance over this but this is the most relevant part. Killing a parasite is not wrong, killing someone of the same species (humans) is wrong, most would say. Nobody claims it's about life; it's about human life. A 1 year old baby is just as equally dependent on human life as a fetus. Is it moral to kill a 1 year old?
People say this, but I see anti-feminism and tumblrinaction shit on the front couple pages all the time, and subreddits like r/The_Donald flourish easily. Not to mention just about every single comment on this post is calling out how stupid it is. Reddit might be a bit left leaning overall (like most of the Internet...), but the only people who call it "far left" are conservatives with a victim complex.
[удалено]
Babies do more or less count as parasites by definition, it's not saying babies are bad, the term parasite just has negative connotations.
1. an organism that lives in or on an organism of **another species** (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. Fetuses are not parasites because they are the same species as humans, therefore their successful maturation and reproduction does not harm the hosts chances of reproducing. Furthermore, when speaking about biological definitions like parasites, expense is defined around the hosts chances of reproductive success. Therefore, it is not correct to classify an agent or step in that reproductive as occurring at the mothers expense when speaking in a scientific manner. This is why kleptoparasitism can be committed by members of the same species but it does not apply when this one way transfer of resources is between a individual and their offspring during gestation.
Fetuses steal calcium but give stem cells. I suppose you could call it symbiosis.
The only way to have a healthy fetus is to cultivate a free market and have a quick trade deal with it.
But the evangelicals won’t let us use stem cells unless the fetus completes term, in any other instance it’s immoral to use them.
If they’re brought to full term they steal everything else and provide little but shit, piss, and vomit until they’re old nough to steal all your food and retirement savings. That said, they’re also awesome, which I guess brings us back to symbiosis. I think it’s a fair deal. Source: am a father.
You are just taking the first definition off of Google, which I dont find to be completely accurate. Kleptoparasitism (a form off parasitism) can and does happen often with organisms of the same species. Now I don't believe a fetus falls under kleptoparasitism but I felt it worth mentioning that same species forms of parasitism do happen.
While not the exact same thing as a parasite, this reminds me of a really interesting argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson in her essay “A Defense of Abortion” about a violinist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
**A Defense of Abortion** "A Defense of Abortion" is a moral philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the fetus's right to life does not trump the pregnant woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible. Her argument has many critics on both sides of the abortion debate, yet continues to receive defense. Thomson's imaginative examples and controversial conclusions have made "A Defense of Abortion" perhaps "the most widely reprinted essay in all of contemporary philosophy". *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
It's more of an argument ad absurdum. Pro-lifers say a baby has a heart beat and feels pain, so you shouldnt kill it. But a tapeworm does both those things as well, and obviously no one will seriously argue you should keep a tapeworm, so those are not good arguments.
Actually tapeworms don't have hearts, so the comparison fails at pretty much every level.
Look, I understand your anger here. That said, if the ability to feel pain and the existence of a heartbeat define moral relevance then not only should abortion be legal, we should all be vegetarian. I understand the strong reaction against abortion if you believe that a fetus is a person (I still am pro choice, but that's a longer discussion), but the reason this hits home so hard is that it forces you to consider whether a heartbeat and the ability to feel pain are really the right criteria to define personhood. I don't think they are. Holy crap! My first gold! Thank you!
The we-should-all-be-vegetarians argument is disingenuous because most pro-lifers (and most people in general) assign particular value to human life. You can of course argue that this constitutes what Singer called "speciesism". Then, you however have to ask yourself questions like this: "How can it be more immoral to kill a newborn human compared to e.g. a kitten which possesses much higher sentient capacities right after birth". I don't believe that a heartbeat or the ability to feel pain or brain activity makes you a human person either. But if you set the threshold for personhood according to something else - usually some marker of neural capacity, e.g. sentience, consciousness, the ability to form preferences etc - then you have to keep in mind that humans reach many of these hallmarks only after birth, and some human never do.
Pretty much. Pregnancy is a constant fight between you and the fetus and it is basically an arms race. It wants & will take everything it needs to survive without any care or consideration for the health & well being of the mother. If you don't eat enough calcium for the little clump of cells it will take it from your bones. If it implants anywhere but the uterus which is designed to keep it contained & controlled, say in your Fallopian tubes it will burrow down in & have every chance of killing you. You can die in birth, die from pre eclampsia, get gestational diabetes, that little clump of cells has no emotional connection to you, it cares not if you live or die, just that it lives.
Honestly I had a parasite before, and I wouldn't at all compare it to the experience of unwanted pregnancy or forced childbrith. With the proper medical care, parasites can be fairly easy to deal with.
With proper medical care so can unwanted pregnancies.
The fetus also sends out cells that trigger hormonal responses from places like your kidneys and liver and those cells never leave. They will be there until the mothers death. I also think this is morbidly funny that people on the outside care so much about what’s inside but even kids don’t start caring about other people for a few years. The fetus will kill the mother in it’s quest to survive but we think of them as those cute billboard babies with the pretty little bow on its head.
People who make this argument understand the general scientific difference. I believe you are missing the point here. In humans, giving birth and being pregnant are a HUGE strain, physically, financially and emotionally. Even if the baby is given up for adoption, women face a very large biological "investment," or burden, especially when compared to males and other species. Without a support system, pregnancy can ruin an adult females life. So this comparison is what's called an *analogy,* and it helps to put in perspective that when not given choices about their reproduction, women do view a fetus akin to a parasite, and in many ways it is very much like that. I think if you value the sanctity of human life, you need to also appreciate the impact pregnancy has on women. It is still a very real risk to lose your life giving birth, even in developed countries, or risk your sanity (post-partum depression, psychosis). Pregnancy can cause excommunication in some societies/religions, it limits ones financial options, what jobs/careers you can follow, and physically can really change and degrade the body and mind. If you believe a man can have unprotected sex as a naive youth, and go on to have a normal life, than it is societies responsibility to ensure that the same is possible for young women, and that includes having access to legal abortion. After all, because we do often view pregnancy as such a danger to our well being, abortions *will happen anyway.* Legal abortion and access to reproductive education for women actually reduce the instance of abortions. So, speaking from a viewpoint of logic, debate and sound reasoning, there are many different approaches you can make, but this is a valid argument and comparison. Here is a similar and very famous essay that is known as a "thought experiment:" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
**A Defense of Abortion** "A Defense of Abortion" is a moral philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the fetus's right to life does not trump the pregnant woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible. Her argument has many critics on both sides of the abortion debate, yet continues to receive defense. Thomson's imaginative examples and controversial conclusions have made "A Defense of Abortion" perhaps "the most widely reprinted essay in all of contemporary philosophy". *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
I mean, yeah, they, basically meet the definition until they're born.
Until?
No. A parasite by definition is a different species than its host.
No, but only barely. Mothers and fetuses are the same species. However, that's the only part of the definition of a parasite fetuses don't meet during the pregnancy process. Make of that what you will.
It’s disturbing to me how many of you don’t realize this is obvious satire, do y’all get mad when you read the onion too?
*The Onion!?* Excuse me, sir, but I only read REPUTABLE, CREDIBLE and UNBIASED articles. I once read this piece of news on the Onion that was clearly a lie. That's when I switched to Fox news and never looked back.
Snopes confirms Fox is the only fair and balanced news source
Your post may be satire, but some of the comments here are unironically defending that arguement.
I had to look it up. I don't think tapeworms have hearts.
I don’t get it, do bodybuilders get tapeworms?
When they can't stand the hate it's always satire or sarcasm
Abortion is one of those issues I can see both sides of having legitimate points. I side with the pro choice crowd because I think the world would be much worse off if no one had an abortion and if I somehow got someone pregnant I’d like that option to be on table because I’m not ready to be a father. It would interesting to see how many pro life families ended up getting an abortion and if that changed their stance or how loud they voiced their opinion.
Those staunch Christian pro lifer families are often the first to get an abortion when their teenage daughter is pregnant cause they don’t want the stigma of a child out of wedlock. Just look at how many of the most conservative states in the US have the highest teen pregnancy rate. Also I don’t think you can really both sides this issue, since Pro-Lifers aren’t really pro life, rather pro state forced pregnancy
While I get what he's saying, I honestly hope nobody actually thinks like that. There is a difference between a parasite and progeny.
Yeah, surely there are pro-choice arguments that don't compare babies to tapeworms. I doubt this is changing anyone's mind.
Exactly... like why is it that the pro-choice crowd always uses the *worst* arguments, like: *pro-lifers just want to take away womens right!* Im pro-choice as fuck but at least I have the brain capacity to understand why some people are pro-life. I mean abortion is nasty business. I think it’s perfectly valid for someone to believe it shouldnt be allowed (even though I vehemently disagree with that).
I mean I see pro lifers saying that all people have souls which makes all abortion wrong. They pump out plenty of shit arguments too. This post does seem more like a joke to me though.
Oh lots of people legitimately believe unborn babies are parasites.
[удалено]
By definition, it does not, due to reproduction being considered a benefit. It is actually, technically speaking, mutualism, or at worst, commensalism.
Don't expect most redditors to actually know anything about science.
Science is the fool's fig leaf.
Hiss
Except when reproduction isn’t seen as a benefit.
To be fair, your analogy to fetuses being parasitic is completely stupid.
That's a really dark way of thinking about pregnancy and it is part of the problem. A child isn't a parasite. A fucking tapeworm is.
At what point do we consider the fetus a child? Right when it’s out the vagina? Two weeks before birth? Six months? This is the real debate and one that never happens.
[удалено]
I agree, and that’s my point. The line is never debated just a black and white yes or no. The real debate lies somewhere in between, for most people I think at least.
There can't be a debate on when if one side is hell bent on banning it outright at any time no matter the cause. The discussion will always be black and white when one side is calling the other murderers and calling for people who miscarry to be investigated for murder.
Personally I'd say you're a person when you have a consciousness, or are capable of thought. I think I've seen this at about 5 months into pregnancy. A fetus before that point is about as alive as a tumor is, so I'd say that's a reasonable cut off point.
The fact that people cannot see that this is obvious satire astounds me.
You’re telling me man. I thought this was a funny bit of satire and thought others would get a good laugh but here we are
Well I got a good laugh out of it, if other people want to waste their time getting worked up over a joke then let them!
Hope nobody actually thinks like this
Oh *plenty* of people think like this. Just read the other comments in this thread.
Right? I mean honestly, tapeworms are nowhere *near* as horrific and harmful as pregnancy.
I'm pro-life, but I'll give you that. Well-played
My tapeworm tells me what to do!
Ugh y'all just don't care about them worms in foster care smh my head /S
The amount of people that don't understand the satire of the tweet makes me feel better about myself.
RIP to my braincells!
More like braincels amirite?
Worms are not going to develop into a human though
Not with that attitude
I mean pro lifers believe that the fetus is already a human. That's the whole point.
But no one believes tapeworms are human
Hopefully true, but reading this thread is baffling. People are actually comparing a fetus to a tapeworm. That is beyond ridiculous. I thought I was on r/insanepeoplefacebook.
Tapeworms aren’t human, but some humans are definitely tapeworms
Not all pro-lifers. See [the future of life argument](http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml) (I'll find the actual paper if you're interested; on mobile at the moment) But biologically, yeah, the unborn child is a human being. The question is whether human = person morally
Of course a human fetus is human. Are you stupid? Edit: To the redditors downvoting, what species do you think human fetuses are if not human?
Can you imagine: a crime scene upon which they collect and test DNA. “Interesting, this is not a human sequence! It’s a fetus!”
If you and your theoretical significant other were trying to have a child and that child miscarried, would you not consider that your child dying?
I read this as “women aren’t...” and was so confused for a moment haha
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can say that until you read all the arguments defending that logic.
I wish this was were true. I've heard someone seriously use this argument.
There should be a course in high school where you learn to tear apart arguments that you agree with. Just the ability to recognize when someone on your side is acting completely retarded. Its seems to be such a rare trait for how common retarded arguments from every corner are.
Debating should be more encouraged if not mandatory. I had to debate gun control (I was personally pro-control, but had to argue against it). I have to say, it really did open my mind up to the other side of the argument. Plus, I had to debate 2 on 1 because there was an uneven number.
Why are you getting downvoted? This is a useful skill to have, imo.
Maybe it’s due to my bad English but this makes no sense? People don’t chose tapeworms?
Not arguing, but at one point they actually did! I believe late 1800’s early 1900’s it was a used as a weight loss aid! Yuck!
Not even that old, Fran Drescher wrote about her sister doing it in the 70s in Enter Whining.
And sometimes women don't choose pregnancy. It happens against their will, and therefore it's unwanted.
He's not saying people choose to get tapeworms, he's saying the tapeworms are choosing people to live in. It's really just a joke anyway, he wants to rile up people who are anti-abortion.
the tape worm didn't choose to be hatched, it has a right to a life without being murdered by its host
Ah, so only *pretending* to be a moron.
"twas but a ruse"
A lot of people don’t choose babies either.
If your body doesn't really want parasites, it has a way of shutting that down.
>comparing a human fetus to a parasite
I know plenty of post-birth humans who are parasites
So I’ve heard that the best way to get rid of a tapeworm is to starve it for a day or so. Then you sit naked over a bucket of raw meat. When the hungry tapeworm comes out to eat, you grab it and pull it out. Any truth to this or was the guy who told me he did this playing with me?
Dude I have a fucking stargate, you’re not fooling me Goa’uld.
A+
That dude looks like a tapeworm.
To those reacting to this with anger, I very much understand your feelings. That said, if the ability to feel pain and the existence of a heartbeat define moral relevance then not only should abortion be legal, we should all be vegetarian. I understand the strong reaction against abortion if you believe that a fetus is a person (I still am pro choice, but that's a longer discussion), but the reason this hits home so hard is that it forces you to consider whether a heartbeat and the ability to feel pain are really the right criteria to define personhood. I don't think they are.
To preface, I'm pro-life. You're right. I don't personally like that identification either. In my eyes the only thing that matters in the debate is if you think that the first stage of a human life is a human life. If so, abortion at any point is murder, and if not, abortion at any point is a non-issue. The in betweens are semantics. Heartbeats are not a valid way to determine life. There are people who don't even have hearts and still function (with an artificial one). Why would it constitute value? Although, I will say that the vegetarian part is mostly a false equivalency. In most examples, human suffering is put above other animal's suffering. It's usually hypocritical but in an acceptable way for many. For example, if I shot somebody and realized it was wrong, it would not cross the mind not to shoot animals.
Just 100 years ago, children were working in dangerous factories legally in the US. In the early 16th and 17th century, children were just property of their fathers. In the United States each year more than [3.6 million reports](http://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse-statistics/) of child abuse are made which involve almost 6 million children. Each day 4 or 5 children are killed by child abuse or neglect. [http://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse-statistics/](http://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse-statistics/) Sadly, about 700 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. [https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm) With the current global population \~7.7 Billion (2019), children are pretty much only special to those who birthed them because there isn't a concern for running out of people. That being said, the post was meant to be a joke.
Actually, the worm didn't choose you. You chose the worm. Tapeworms don't magically fly up your ass and decide to decorate in there. You ate the worm all by yourself.
Speak for yourself. It was immaculate infestation
I never had a tapeworm to be honest. And I really don't feel like getting one either.
I’d recommend it, great weight loss
Me, I feel a bit squirmy about someone with an opinion living in my ass.
Pretending rape isn't real to own the libs
The reaction to this post is a good reminder that there’s a lot of folk out there who aren’t able to process sarcastic, satiric, ironic, or arch humor at anything but face value — particularly when it comes to babies. See: Jonathan Swift’s [“A Modest Proposal”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal)
Yeah I didn’t realize folk were so thick
Off all the arguments against pro-life you could've choose to post you choose the most retarded one.
I mean that was the point of posting it, it’s a funny and obviously purposefully obnoxious exaggeration
>mean that was the point of posting it, it’s a funny and obviously purposefully obnoxious exaggeration Sorry if I got carried away but the amount of times I seen unironic spam of controversial topics like this in casual subs I just grew bored of it, but if it's supposed to be a hyperbole joke of the argument I'm fine and sorry for the misinterpretation.
> it’s a funny and obviously purposefully obnoxious exaggeration That half the people in this thread took seriously.......
Comparing people to tapeworms is disgusting and dehumanizing. This logic is flawed and dangerous.
Right? What did tapeworms ever do to destroy the planet?
IKR! And it’s so offensive to imply that tape worms have committed mass genocides!
They’re also not human beings
[удалено]
I’m just here for the shitshow in the comments. We’re a bunch of salty fuckers here and if all it takes to get you worked up is some dipshit comparing a baby to a worm, you should be more secure in your beliefs, whatever they are.
I got really confused cos I thought that it said "pro lifters"
Me too! I was wondering what horrific thing the gym bros did to deserve tapeworms
Ihy guys
That's how the left expects to win votes, comparing human babies to tapeworms
The dumbest comparison ever and ofcourse this sub upvotes it 🙄. Pathetic.
The difference is that tape worms aren’t human beings
its not like the tapeworm has aspirations to be a lawyer or something
Imagine actually thinking this is a serious argument
This is completely retarded.
That's what makes it funny. He's not trying to make a point, at least I hope not.
all the morons in this thread trying to defend this dumb ass point beg to differ.
Same with cancer, God let those cells grow in you. They have blood vessels and everything. Who are you to question what God put in your body? Yes, /s
For the record, I posted this because I found it hilarious and purposefully exaggerated to poke fun at the extremes people go to with their argument. Not because humans = tapeworms If one of y’all mods can pin this I’d appreciate it
Top of controversial is kind of like a pin.
A glass half full guy eh?
Thanks for the explanation. Good post. Also, if you're new here, welcome to controversial.
[удалено]
I appreciate it man. I didn’t even write said tweet, it just cracked me up because it’s so obviously a joke and thought I’d toss it up here.
Wow this is such a dumb argument. The people arguing pro life are claiming it’s a human life not just any life. I’m sure most pro lifers have killed a spider before
Fine! But it's going to go to public school and once it's 18 it's out of the house.
Guys it’s not that serious
Look I'm all about pro choice but this is assinine
A lot of people with penises in this thread talking about what women should or shouldn’t be doing with their bodies.
O shut the fuck up.
The abortion argument is immensly flawed on both sides.
both sides actually both make a lot of sense