Controversial General Political Discussion

[AL sama]

Biological Differences:

1. Species Relationship: A parasite is typically a different species from its host. A fetus, however, shares the same genetic material and is part of the same species as its mother.
2. Purpose and Function: A parasite does not serve a purpose beneficial to the host, whereas a fetus is the offspring of the host and part of a natural reproductive process. While a fetus relies on the mother for survival during pregnancy, the relationship is not inherently detrimental in the evolutionary sense; it is crucial for the continuation of the species.
3. Outcome: In most cases, a parasitic relationship leads to harm or death of the host if left unchecked. In contrast, pregnancy usually leads to the birth of a new individual, which is typically not harmful to the mother under normal conditions.

Ethical and Social Considerations:

1. Ethical Implications: The comparison is controversial from an ethical and social perspective, as it may imply a negative or hostile relationship between the mother and fetus. This is a sensitive issue, especially in discussions about reproductive rights and abortion, and can influence how society views pregnancy.
2. Cultural and Emotional Aspects: Many cultures and individuals view pregnancy and the maternal-fetal bond in positive terms, making the comparison with a parasite not only scientifically inaccurate but also emotionally and socially insensitive.

Complications in Pregnancy:
In some cases, like severe medical conditions (e.g., preeclampsia), pregnancy can harm the mother. However, this does not change the fundamental biological and species differences between a fetus and a parasite.
In summary, while there may be superficial similarities in dependency, a fetus cannot be accurately classified as a parasite from a biological, ethical, or social standpoint.

In summary, while there may be superficial similarities in dependency, a fetus cannot be accurately classified as a parasite from a biological, ethical, or social standpoint.

 

[Zenos7]

Again. I'm not talking about the function but the ACTION of parasiting.

Action =/= Function/nature

A foetus is not a parasite but, when unwanted, it ACTS like a parasite in the body of a woman by taking the ressources and the space inside the body without consent.



Start reasonning.

sure, its taking ressources, but it simply isnt a parasite and cant be, since both beings in this scenario are human.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 8:48 PM

What you don't understand is that the act of parasitizing comes socially with the notion of the lack of consent when we are talking about the action.

So yes. When unwanted, the foetus acts (from the point of view of the bearer) as a parazite. It's LITERALY what it is from their point of you.

But I get that you don't care about that since you take the point of view of women into account in this situation.

only in this case your supposed parasite is literally built by the body that is hosting it. its simply not at all comparable if you actually care about what the word parasite really means, which you obviously dont. . . .

 

[Logiko]

You're the one patronizing women by talking for them and how they view fetuses as if you have a vagina.

I'm only repeating the words of actual feminist women mate (and A LOT of them). Don't assume things and listen to women for once especially those who have to face abortion.

the relationship is not inherently detrimental in the evolutionary sense

This for example. Is not true in the case of all unwanted pregnancy since the simple fact of being unwanted can influence both the life of the mother AND the life of the potential baby.

Outcome: In most cases, a parasitic relationship leads to harm or death of the host if left unchecked. In contrast, pregnancy usually leads to the birth of a new individual, which is typically not harmful to the mother under normal conditions.

I don't know where the F you found this information but to say that the birth of a new individual is not harmfull to the mother is complete nonsense and I propose that you tell any women who gave birth that giving birth is not harmfull to see their reaction.

The comparison is controversial from an ethical and social perspective, as it may imply a negative or hostile relationship between the mother and fetus.

Yes. Hostile. Which is exactly how a LOT of women will see an unwanted foetus they can't abort.

It's only controversial for men who can't accept the choices of women. For those who have to live with a growing potential baby inside of their womb, it's a very real thing.

sure, its taking ressources, but it simply isnt a parasite and cant be, since both beings in this scenario are human.

Yes. That's what I said. It's not a parasite, it only ACTS like a parasite and is SEEN like one by the mother when it is unwanted (and only in this case)

a fetus cannot be accurately classified as a parasite from a biological

Indeed. it's not a parasite it ACTS like a parasite.

Again. You guyz need to understand the difference between an action VS a function/nature/classification.

Also.

Listen to women

 

[Zenos7]

pregnancy usually leads to the birth of a new individual, which is typically not harmful to the mother under normal conditions.

eeh, even with modern medicine issues while giving birth are too common to say its not harmful under normal conditions.

 

[Logiko]

its simply not at all comparable

It's not comparable for you because you don't have to live the situation.

It's perfectly comparable for women who have to live with it.

The action is exactly what it is. A parasitizing. A overtaking of ressources from the body without consent.

 

[NikaInParis]

I'm only repeating the words of actual feminist women mate (and A LOT of them). Don't assume things and listen to women for once especially those who have to face abortion.



This for example. Is not true in the case of all unwanted pregnancy since the simple fact of being unwanted can influence both the life of the mother AND the life of the potential baby.


I don't know where the F you found this information but to say that the birth of a new individual is not harmfull to the mother is complete nonsense and I propose that you tell any women who gave birth that giving birth is not harmfull to see their reaction.


Yes. Hostile. Which is exactly how a LOT of women will see an unwanted foetus they can't abort.

It's only controversial for men who can't accept the choices of women. For those who have to live with a growing potential baby inside of their womb, it's a very real thing.


Yes. That's what I said. It's not a parasite, it only ACTS like a parasite and is SEEN like one by the mother when it is unwanted (and only in this case)


Indeed. it's not a parasite it ACTS like a parasite.

Again. You guyz need to understand the difference between an action VS a function/nature/classification.

Also.

Listen to women

By your own definition of it, you yourself would be considered a parasite to society.
As you are now.
An adult.
Living off of government hand outs.
Parasiting society around you without consent.

 

[AL sama]

eeh, even with modern medicine issues while giving birth are too common to say its not harmful under normal conditions.

yeah I found that point weird too

 

[Zenos7]

Yes. That's what I said. It's not a parasite, it only ACTS like a parasite and is SEEN like one by the mother when it is unwanted (and only in this case)

it cannot act like a parasite since its the same species.

seriously, learn what words mean

 

[Logiko]

By your own definition of it, you yourself would be considered a parasite to society.

No. Since this is something done willingly by the state.

The important word here is "without consent".

it cannot act like a parasite since its the same species.

It's not about the specie, it's about the action of taking ressources without consent.

The nature of the foetus is not a parasite. The action on the other hand is parasitizing.

 

[AL sama]

seriously, learn what words mean

nah you're asking way too much

 

[Logiko]

seriously, learn what words mean

Learn the reality of the world mate. Words have context.

 

[NikaInParis]

No. Since this is something done willingly by the state.

The important word here is "without consent".



It's not about the specie, it's about the action of taking ressources without consent.

The nature of the foetus is not a parasite. The action on the other hand is parasitizing.

You are taking resources (government money) without consent (tax payers that fund that money)

Parasite by your very own definition

 

[Logiko]

without consent (tax payers that fund that money)

Actually most tax payer agree to help people like me.

And it's just the normal human thing to do. You would need to be someone quite inhuman to refuse to help people in situation of handicap through social aids.

Are you telling me that it's your case ?

 

[NikaInParis]

Actually most tax payer agree to help people like me.

And it's just the normal human thing to do. You would need to be someone quite inhuman to refuse to help people in situation of handicap through social aids.

Are you telling me that it's your case ?

No, I help those in need directly and indirectly
Thing is you're not handicapped - just lazy

 

[Logiko]

No, I help those in need directly and indirectly
Thing is you're not handicapped - just lazy

Well, I guess you will have to tell that to the council of psychiatrist and psychologist who analysed my situation. You seem to have much more knowledge that them.

 

[Mathias]

No, I help those in need directly and indirectly
Thing is you're not handicapped - just lazy

Are you his psychiatrist ?

 

[Haoshoku]

Calling a fetus a parasite is WILD. People really do be saying anything to in a sad attempt to morally justify killing babies. Crazy times. Abortion is mostly pursued due to the consequence of copious amounts of casual sex, licentiousness and degeneracy.

The stats are pretty clear on that:

Spoiler

 

[Roo]

Calling a fetus a parasite is WILD. People really do be saying anything to in a sad attempt to morally justify killing babies. Crazy times. Abortion is mostly pursued due to the consequence of copious amounts of casual sex, licentiousness and degeneracy.

The stats are pretty clear on that:

Spoiler

The whole point of the abortion argument is that people disagree that an early fetus is a person. You can't just state that it is and expect pro choice people to accept your premise

 

[AL sama]

You are taking resources (government money) without consent (tax payers that fund that money)

Parasite by your very own definition

chill bro

 

[Logiko]

Calling a fetus a parasite is WILD.

Again. Make the difference between me calling the ACTION and the NATURE.

I'm not calling the foetus a parasite (even if i'm sure some women who live those situation would) I'm calling the ACTION "parasitizing". Nuance.

People really do be saying anything to in a sad attempt to morally justify killing babies.

A foetus is not a baby. It's a foetus. It doesn't feel and it doesn't think.

You could say that it's a POTENTIAL baby.

But you don't override the choices and body of women (and men who transitionned) who wants to abort on a potentiality when you are a good person

-------------------

Thing is you're not handicapped - just lazy

Oh BTW.

I'm taking the occasion of you sayin this to extend the conversation I had with I don't remember who about Meritocracy.

Ableism takes it's root in capitalism AND meritocracy.

As you can see here, Nika thinks that because I don't do anything, I'm therefore "lazy". This is a common ableist projection created by meritocracy. And illutrates what I explained here:

>>

When someone tells me that I'm not legitimate to have a political opinions simply because I'm not a productive member of society (in the capitalist sence) and because of my situation laugh at me or insult me, well.. they are forcing ableism ON me IN capitalism BECAUSE OF a meritocratic belief that only people who are "productive members" of society are legitimate and worthy to be rewarded, because they put their "efforts" in.

Since I do not have a visible handicap that aligns with the preconception of Nika for handicaped people, I'm therefore not handicaped and since I'm not productive.... It does not matter for them that the process that validated my handicap took 10 month or that a lot of professionnal took the time to analyse my situation. For them I'm "lazy"

Capitalism reenforce the oppression on people like me or others who do not align with the "good" vision of handicaped people.
And it works for poor people, minorities and people in difficulty as well.

This is what meritocracy does.