SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


+1

Yup. It’s not viable and can’t live without “its host”.

It’s not a standalone person.


No but it is a person. People who are helpless and dependent on others for life should be defended and cared for. Your toddler is dependent on you for nutrients, too.



A toddler isn't dependent solely on one person in a parasitic manner - feeding off of the host body directly.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This issue is too serious for these stupid semantic debates. Women should never be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies. Period.

+1
The fact is that Republicans don’t think of women as people. If you’re willing to force the use of someone else’s body for your own religious beliefs, you don’t think of the life of the person from whom you’re stealing as worthy. It’s un-American on multiple levels. It’s certainly inhuman.


Women are people. But so are babies. I never will get the way people discard babies in utero like they are enemies of the state and monsters. Especially when 99% of women seek abortion of convenience and have not been raped.

Even then, the baby isn’t the rapist. The baby is innocent. He or she had no role in any crime and is being unjustly sentenced to death for the crime of another person.


Your comment make the PPs point, exactly. You think of women as secondary or not relevant at all. It's all about "the baby." Even in the case of rape, which is unimaginable to think you would force another person to carry the result of a violent, traumatic personal invasion.



Which is an equally, if not more, violent, traumatic personal invasion. Pro-birthers are equivalent to rapists.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This issue is too serious for these stupid semantic debates. Women should never be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies. Period.

+1
The fact is that Republicans don’t think of women as people. If you’re willing to force the use of someone else’s body for your own religious beliefs, you don’t think of the life of the person from whom you’re stealing as worthy. It’s un-American on multiple levels. It’s certainly inhuman.


Exactly.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Which is an equally, if not more, violent, traumatic personal invasion. Pro-birthers are equivalent to rapists.


I’m sure they’d quibble, but it’s the same thing.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm.

Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism.

Fetal stem cells are known to travel to sites of damage or injury in the mother, and mothers with a weakened heart, for example, get fetal stem cells which travel to their hearts and turn into cardiac cells, helping strengthen the mother’s heart.

In contrast, the parasitic latching on to another organism does not help the host and there is no mutual sharing of benefits.

Who taught you a baby in utero was “parasitic?” Because they were wrong.

I don't know. My mom is a neonatologist (i.e. she's devoted her entire career to treating premature newborns). When talking about maternal health, she refers to fetuses as "highly effective parasites".
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm.

Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism.

Fetal stem cells are known to travel to sites of damage or injury in the mother, and mothers with a weakened heart, for example, get fetal stem cells which travel to their hearts and turn into cardiac cells, helping strengthen the mother’s heart.

In contrast, the parasitic latching on to another organism does not help the host and there is no mutual sharing of benefits.

Who taught you a baby in utero was “parasitic?” Because they were wrong.

I don't know. My mom is a neonatologist (i.e. she's devoted her entire career to treating premature newborns). When talking about maternal health, she refers to fetuses as "highly effective parasites".



A parasite is an organism of one species that lives in or on an organism of another species and receives nourishment from the host.
Parasites are invasive organism that come from an outside or external source. A fetus comes from an inside or internal source (ie fertilized egg)
Parasites are generally harmful to the hosts, fetuses may make a pregnant woman experience adverse health effects, but not nearly to the same level that a parasite generally does.
A parasite makes direct contact with the host's living tissues. A fetus lives in the placenta, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (ie the cells come from the baby).
When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to cut it off from other surrounding tissue. In the case of a fetus, the mother’s tissue will create a lining tissue that connects, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).
Parasites usually elicit a surge of antibodies as an immunological response. With the fetus, however, a mother’s trophoblast (the shell of cells surrounding the embryo) will naturally block these antibodies so as not to reject the fetus. This reaction is only found in the embryo-mother relationship.
A parasite will generally weaken the cellular reproductive capacity of the host.For a fetus, the effect is the opposite.
Parasites generally stay with the host for life, a fetus leaves upon birth.
Parasitical relationships are mostly harmful and unnecessary to the host, generally damaging the host in a variety of ways. A newborn (fetus post-birth) is very healthy for the mother, bringing benefits of an emotional, cognitive and chemical nature.
The most obvious one, a fetus is a human being in development. It will never become anything other than human. Even a first trimester fetus will have fully developed arms, legs, ears, facial features, sex organs and a functioning heart, as well as sufficient neurological development to feel pain. A parasite is not a human and never will be.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm.

Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism.

Fetal stem cells are known to travel to sites of damage or injury in the mother, and mothers with a weakened heart, for example, get fetal stem cells which travel to their hearts and turn into cardiac cells, helping strengthen the mother’s heart.

In contrast, the parasitic latching on to another organism does not help the host and there is no mutual sharing of benefits.

Who taught you a baby in utero was “parasitic?” Because they were wrong.

I don't know. My mom is a neonatologist (i.e. she's devoted her entire career to treating premature newborns). When talking about maternal health, she refers to fetuses as "highly effective parasites".



A parasite is an organism of one species that lives in or on an organism of another species and receives nourishment from the host.
Parasites are invasive organism that come from an outside or external source. A fetus comes from an inside or internal source (ie fertilized egg)
Parasites are generally harmful to the hosts, fetuses may make a pregnant woman experience adverse health effects, but not nearly to the same level that a parasite generally does.
A parasite makes direct contact with the host's living tissues. A fetus lives in the placenta, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (ie the cells come from the baby).
When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to cut it off from other surrounding tissue. In the case of a fetus, the mother’s tissue will create a lining tissue that connects, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).
Parasites usually elicit a surge of antibodies as an immunological response. With the fetus, however, a mother’s trophoblast (the shell of cells surrounding the embryo) will naturally block these antibodies so as not to reject the fetus. This reaction is only found in the embryo-mother relationship.
A parasite will generally weaken the cellular reproductive capacity of the host.For a fetus, the effect is the opposite.
Parasites generally stay with the host for life, a fetus leaves upon birth.
Parasitical relationships are mostly harmful and unnecessary to the host, generally damaging the host in a variety of ways. A newborn (fetus post-birth) is very healthy for the mother, bringing benefits of an emotional, cognitive and chemical nature.
The most obvious one, a fetus is a human being in development. It will never become anything other than human. Even a first trimester fetus will have fully developed arms, legs, ears, facial features, sex organs and a functioning heart, as well as sufficient neurological development to feel pain. A parasite is not a human and never will be.



You’re not really good at metaphors are you?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm.

Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism.

Fetal stem cells are known to travel to sites of damage or injury in the mother, and mothers with a weakened heart, for example, get fetal stem cells which travel to their hearts and turn into cardiac cells, helping strengthen the mother’s heart.

In contrast, the parasitic latching on to another organism does not help the host and there is no mutual sharing of benefits.

Who taught you a baby in utero was “parasitic?” Because they were wrong.

I don't know. My mom is a neonatologist (i.e. she's devoted her entire career to treating premature newborns). When talking about maternal health, she refers to fetuses as "highly effective parasites".



A parasite is an organism of one species that lives in or on an organism of another species and receives nourishment from the host.
Parasites are invasive organism that come from an outside or external source. A fetus comes from an inside or internal source (ie fertilized egg)
Parasites are generally harmful to the hosts, fetuses may make a pregnant woman experience adverse health effects, but not nearly to the same level that a parasite generally does.
A parasite makes direct contact with the host's living tissues. A fetus lives in the placenta, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (ie the cells come from the baby).
When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to cut it off from other surrounding tissue. In the case of a fetus, the mother’s tissue will create a lining tissue that connects, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).
Parasites usually elicit a surge of antibodies as an immunological response. With the fetus, however, a mother’s trophoblast (the shell of cells surrounding the embryo) will naturally block these antibodies so as not to reject the fetus. This reaction is only found in the embryo-mother relationship.
A parasite will generally weaken the cellular reproductive capacity of the host.For a fetus, the effect is the opposite.
Parasites generally stay with the host for life, a fetus leaves upon birth.
Parasitical relationships are mostly harmful and unnecessary to the host, generally damaging the host in a variety of ways. A newborn (fetus post-birth) is very healthy for the mother, bringing benefits of an emotional, cognitive and chemical nature.
The most obvious one, a fetus is a human being in development. It will never become anything other than human. Even a first trimester fetus will have fully developed arms, legs, ears, facial features, sex organs and a functioning heart, as well as sufficient neurological development to feel pain. A parasite is not a human and never will be.



You’re not really good at metaphors are you?

PP with the neonatologist mom. I'm starting to think this poster is some kind of NLP model barfing out responses. I've seen a demo of GPT-3 producing this kind of nonsense live. It's impressive from that perspective.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm.

Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism.

Fetal stem cells are known to travel to sites of damage or injury in the mother, and mothers with a weakened heart, for example, get fetal stem cells which travel to their hearts and turn into cardiac cells, helping strengthen the mother’s heart.

In contrast, the parasitic latching on to another organism does not help the host and there is no mutual sharing of benefits.

Who taught you a baby in utero was “parasitic?” Because they were wrong.

I don't know. My mom is a neonatologist (i.e. she's devoted her entire career to treating premature newborns). When talking about maternal health, she refers to fetuses as "highly effective parasites".


I’d be uncomfortable if my child’s doctor referred to my child and her patient as a “parasite.” Does your mom call her patients that in front of their parents and her colleagues?

I think that’s extremely disturbing.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm.

Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism.

Fetal stem cells are known to travel to sites of damage or injury in the mother, and mothers with a weakened heart, for example, get fetal stem cells which travel to their hearts and turn into cardiac cells, helping strengthen the mother’s heart.

In contrast, the parasitic latching on to another organism does not help the host and there is no mutual sharing of benefits.

Who taught you a baby in utero was “parasitic?” Because they were wrong.

I don't know. My mom is a neonatologist (i.e. she's devoted her entire career to treating premature newborns). When talking about maternal health, she refers to fetuses as "highly effective parasites".


I’d be uncomfortable if my child’s doctor referred to my child and her patient as a “parasite.” Does your mom call her patients that in front of their parents and her colleagues?

I think that’s extremely disturbing.

My mom's patients are newborns. They are, by definition, not fetuses.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm.

Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism.

Fetal stem cells are known to travel to sites of damage or injury in the mother, and mothers with a weakened heart, for example, get fetal stem cells which travel to their hearts and turn into cardiac cells, helping strengthen the mother’s heart.

In contrast, the parasitic latching on to another organism does not help the host and there is no mutual sharing of benefits.

Who taught you a baby in utero was “parasitic?” Because they were wrong.

I don't know. My mom is a neonatologist (i.e. she's devoted her entire career to treating premature newborns). When talking about maternal health, she refers to fetuses as "highly effective parasites".


I’d be uncomfortable if my child’s doctor referred to my child and her patient as a “parasite.” Does your mom call her patients that in front of their parents and her colleagues?

I think that’s extremely disturbing.

My mom's patients are newborns. They are, by definition, not fetuses.


The day before they are born, they are parasites though. Passing through the birth canal turns a parasite into a human baby.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If life begins at delivery, why do we have to kill the baby to complete an abortion? You kill what is living. The baby is killed during abortion. The baby is alive; life has begun.


I don't understand what you are trying to say but a fetus is not viable outside the womb so it really isn't a separate entity from the host, more like parasite.


First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm.

Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism.

Fetal stem cells are known to travel to sites of damage or injury in the mother, and mothers with a weakened heart, for example, get fetal stem cells which travel to their hearts and turn into cardiac cells, helping strengthen the mother’s heart.

In contrast, the parasitic latching on to another organism does not help the host and there is no mutual sharing of benefits.

Who taught you a baby in utero was “parasitic?” Because they were wrong.

I don't know. My mom is a neonatologist (i.e. she's devoted her entire career to treating premature newborns). When talking about maternal health, she refers to fetuses as "highly effective parasites".



A parasite is an organism of one species that lives in or on an organism of another species and receives nourishment from the host.
Parasites are invasive organism that come from an outside or external source. A fetus comes from an inside or internal source (ie fertilized egg)
Parasites are generally harmful to the hosts, fetuses may make a pregnant woman experience adverse health effects, but not nearly to the same level that a parasite generally does.
A parasite makes direct contact with the host's living tissues. A fetus lives in the placenta, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (ie the cells come from the baby).
When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to cut it off from other surrounding tissue. In the case of a fetus, the mother’s tissue will create a lining tissue that connects, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).
Parasites usually elicit a surge of antibodies as an immunological response. With the fetus, however, a mother’s trophoblast (the shell of cells surrounding the embryo) will naturally block these antibodies so as not to reject the fetus. This reaction is only found in the embryo-mother relationship.
A parasite will generally weaken the cellular reproductive capacity of the host.For a fetus, the effect is the opposite.
Parasites generally stay with the host for life, a fetus leaves upon birth.
Parasitical relationships are mostly harmful and unnecessary to the host, generally damaging the host in a variety of ways. A newborn (fetus post-birth) is very healthy for the mother, bringing benefits of an emotional, cognitive and chemical nature.
The most obvious one, a fetus is a human being in development. It will never become anything other than human. Even a first trimester fetus will have fully developed arms, legs, ears, facial features, sex organs and a functioning heart, as well as sufficient neurological development to feel pain. A parasite is not a human and never will be.



You’re not really good at metaphors are you?

PP with the neonatologist mom. I'm starting to think this poster is some kind of NLP model barfing out responses. I've seen a demo of GPT-3 producing this kind of nonsense live. It's impressive from that perspective.


Can you refute the facts?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This issue is too serious for these stupid semantic debates. Women should never be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies. Period.

+1
The fact is that Republicans don’t think of women as people. If you’re willing to force the use of someone else’s body for your own religious beliefs, you don’t think of the life of the person from whom you’re stealing as worthy. It’s un-American on multiple levels. It’s certainly inhuman.


Women are people. But so are babies. I never will get the way people discard babies in utero like they are enemies of the state and monsters. Especially when 99% of women seek abortion of convenience and have not been raped.

Even then, the baby isn’t the rapist. The baby is innocent. He or she had no role in any crime and is being unjustly sentenced to death for the crime of another person.


Your comment make the PPs point, exactly. You think of women as secondary or not relevant at all. It's all about "the baby." Even in the case of rape, which is unimaginable to think you would force another person to carry the result of a violent, traumatic personal invasion.



It so strange that these people exist to me who don’t think a woman should be able to choose her own life and well being over the unborn child her body is literally making.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:It so strange that these people exist to me who don’t think a woman should be able to choose her own life and well being over the unborn child her body is literally making.

They’re misogynists. At their core they literally don’t think women have any value at all. And many of them are women! Can you imagine having internalized those messages such that the contents of one of your organs, a potential, a maybe, is worth more than the walking, talking, thinking actual living person in front of you? That you totally ignore the person for the possibility?
Anonymous
Until the fetus is fully formed, it’s basically a parasite. It’s a separate organism with its own unique, foreign DNA. It creates a barrier in the womb for protection from so host’s immune system. It cannot exist on its own - relying on its host (or serious medical intervention) for nutrition, oxygen, etc.

In modern, wealthy counties, premature babies have a better chance of survival preterm but that’s not by nature’s design.

A mother is a fully-formed person entitled to all of the personal liberty and bodily autonomy of a man. She’s not just a host for the “parasite”.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: