Home - List All Discussions

Suicide Okay?

by: Jenny222

Hey Death Camp:

Do you think it is fine for people to kill themselves? After all it's their bodies. Surely, you wouldn't even try and talk a friend out of it since it is their "choice"?

Just wondering how sick you all are....?

reply from: LochFyne

Your post shows a lack of understanding of suicide.

Those drama kings/queens who threaten to off themselves so someone will talk them out of it don't want to be dead. They want lots and lots and LOTS of attention. People who attempt suicide, only to be discovered "just in the knick of time", are a whole different class from truly suicidal people, who will kill themselves in ways that don't allow "do-overs". Often, they don't talk about it. They just do it.

reply from: Dmourning

What LF said.

Drama queens who brag about wanting to commit suicide are just begging for attention in a totally inappropriate way.

reply from: Jenny222

I agree. But my question was is it cool with you if people 'off' themselves? Like say a friend of yours didn't say anything about it to you, but you found out he or she was now dead from suicide... Would you be like, "well, it was her decision, it's her body."

reply from: Jenny222

I agree. But my question was is it cool with you if people 'off' themselves? Like say a friend of yours didn't say anything about it to you, but you found out he or she was now dead from suicide... Would you be like, "well, it was her decision, it's her body."

reply from: bobinsky

My, Jenny, that's a fine christian attitude you have there. So loving, so compassionate.

You are right, D, that there are persons who talk about suicide and these are the people who probably won't do it but need attention and mental health help. Their cries for attention should be heeded and the illness dealt with. But if a person is going to kill him/herself, s/he is going to do it completely and totally leaving no way out. Imagine how alone and desperate these people feel to throw away their lives as if they didn't matter to anyone. It's sad.

reply from: LochFyne

My first thought when that happened to me was, Why didn't you talk to me?!?! Maybe I could have helped."

But later, somewhere in my heart I realized he had a wound to his spirit that he didn't think could be healed. And it was his choice to stop trying. It still hurts, but I support that choice.

Any questions?EDITED

reply from: bobinsky

People who commit suicide are mentally ill. This is the part you don't understand. Would you let a severely retarded person attempt to cross a busy street by himself? But a mentally ill person is an entirely different situation and to not try to get this person the mental health help he needs would be unfortunate. In the end it is his/her choice and only s/he knows the entire decision behind the action. I would hope and pray that s/he did not suffer from the actual death.

reply from: Jenny222

How am i not being loving, compassionate, and christian by asking your views on suicide? You claim babies don't have the right to be born, because their moms have control over their own bodies so i was merely wondering how far this thought of yours went. If you feel everyone has control over their bodies or only pregnant women who don't want to have to unselfishly give of themselves by being a parent to the child they made by having SEX.

reply from: bobinsky

Referring to persons as "death camp" and then wanting to know how sick we all are. This can hardly be called christian compassion. I know real, true godly christians and this is not the way they talk. Perhaps you should take a lesson in humility from Amber. She's a great teacher.

No, I do not claim what you state. I believe it is the woman's right to choose what is best for her if she is facing an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. And here's a newflash, Jenny: it takes two people to make a baby the traditional way. Yet you only whine about the woman being a parent. Perhaps if the man would step up to the responsibility, or makes sure he uses some form of birth control, the resulting situation would be different. But it's easier for you anti-choicers to blame the women. One of the reasons women choose to terminate a pregnancy is because their partners (these would be the men) are not supportive. Maybe if these men WERE supportive, these women would choose to keep the baby instead.

So now, understanding the situation, what do YOU plan to do, Jenny, to make sure that men live up to their paternal responsibilities?

reply from: sarah

Don't worry about it Jenny, you weren't being un-Christian.

Some people just look for a way and a chance to slam others.

You asked a legtimate question as the line is so blurred with por-aborts when it comes to life, it is hard to know exactly where they stand.

reply from: Jenny222

Don't worry i spoke to God about it, and he assures me he has a sense of humor regarding my death camp comment. Besides, we're all sinners.

As far as men having responsibility, it strikes me as truly ironic that you would say such a thing.

Aren't you the same bobinsky who doesn't think men should have a say in whether or not a woman has an abortion? After all its her body. By that way of thinking why should he step up to the plate before, during, or after? Obviously, you are one of the numerous pro-deathers who have a double standard about mens involvement in pregnancy.

If she wants to keep it = he should help her

If she doesn't want it = he should not put in his two cents at all (it's her body = it's her problem)

reply from: bobinsky

There now, Jenny, Sarah has absolved you of any bad feelings or guilt about your comments, so you don't really need god's forgiveness anymore. And in your case, I'm sure god has quite a sense of humor.

Just because you lack comprehension skills, Sarah, does not mean that the pro-choice line is blurred. The line is quite clear: your body, your choice. Can't get much simpler, but then this doesn't mean you'll be able to understand it any easier.

There are quite a few posters on here who need to remember this, but alas, they deem themselves worthy of casting the first stone. It's been interesting to read some of the personal stories and admittances here on the board and it seems that the regular posters really have no call to judge the morality of others when they themselves have been lacking in same.

I see you didn't read my post and make the connection that was there between women who terminate pregnancies because their partners are not supportive. Remember this? Conversely, then, if the males WERE supportive of the pregnancy, perhaps the women would not abort.
The sad fact is, men are over a barrel in the case of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. You would think that knowing this, they'd be a little more hesitant to be dipping their wicks whenever they get the urge, but for some reason, they don't stop. They know they have no rights in the abortion decision; this is the male conundrum. TS, as someone said on the forum the other day.
Sometimes, every once in awhile, there is a man who comes across as believable and honestly has an interest in the resultant pregnancy, and I encourage him and the woman to try to work things out, to see if they can come to some sort of agreement. Occasionally this happens, and for the most part, things turn out well. But the bottom line is that the woman is the one who carries the pregnancy, misses work for appointments, takes off time from work after abortion or delivery, or, if there are complications before delivery, must take off a chunk of time from her job to deal with the complications, whatever they may be. She's the one who risks her life. The male is not affected physically in any way. It's not his uterus. So men are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Then again, they take the chance thinking they won't get caught.

You're right, Jenny. I'm not a pro-deather.

reply from: ChristianLott

Talking about Post Abortion Syndrom (PAS):

For more information:

http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_9.asp

reply from: yoda

Wonderful. That means every fetus own it's own body, and will be given the choice of what to do with it.

What a marvelous concept!

reply from: LochLynne

Oh fiddel faddle.

A fetus is is not COGNIZANT of itself. It is not capable of self-reflection. That's what consitutes human beings as we know them. At that point, yes - I'd would definitely consider talking them out of of.

The mental health discussions here really haven't been meaningful. There are people who do have impulses to take their life and I'd at least try to take to talk them out of it.

But then again, they are conscious and self-reflective and are not a parasite in someone else's body.

reply from: sarah

You do realize that a baby can't be considered as a parasite, right?

For anything to be considered a parasite it can't be of the same species. I hope you are aware the developing child in the womb is the same species as the mother.

reply from: LochFyne

It just ain't so.

The biological definition of a parasite specifies that the host is a different organism from the parasite, not an organism of a different species.

reply from: yoda

That can't be established with present technology, one way or the other. That's why it's morally necessary to wait a while until it can communicate it's wishes to us.

Balderdash! It is the species classification of our parents that "constitute" our classification:

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/H0317900.html %20humanhuman being: NOUN: human

reply from: yoda

Wow! Just wow!

McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology Online: Dictionary Terms
parasite [BIOLOGY] An organism that lives in or on another organism of different species from which it derives nutrients and shelter.

http://www.accessscience.com/search/asearch?location=titlestext&newSearch=1&categories=encyclopediaarticle%23encyclopediaupdate%23biography%23dictionary%23news%23qa&categval=news&categval=qa&categval=encyclopediaarticle&categval=encyclopediaupdate&categval=biography&categval=dictionary&text=parasite

reply from: Tam

That can't be established with present technology, one way or the other. That's why it's morally necessary to wait a while until it can communicate it's wishes to us.

Balderdash! It is the species classification of our parents that "constitute" our classification:

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/H0317900.html %20humanhuman being: NOUN: human

Yes, LF, I thought you'd already acknowledged that abortion kills a human child. Did you forget? Human is an issue of biology, not psychology. (Lucky for some!)

reply from: LochFyne

Please do not confuse Lynne the radical feminist with Fyne the Libertarian capitalist. Thank you.

reply from: bobinsky

LF, surely you know by now that yodavater usually posts a whole bunch of definitions (we should call him the definition king of the p/l forums) when he's trying to make a point. Usually he does a very thorough job of culling the list of definitions he posts to make sure there are none that do not disagree with the point he is trying to make. However, this time he only posted one definition because, well, we know why he only posted one. Therefore, for everyone's benefit, I will post a host (no pun intended) of other definitions for the term "parasite" that for some strange reason DK missed. As you can see, some definition do mirror that of the ONE that DK posted, but there are many more than do NOT. Remember, pro-choicers, that when furthering its agenda, the anti-choice camp will do what it takes.
Now, for your perusal:

Definitions of parasite on the Web:
an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host
leech: a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Parasite is a fictional character, a supervillain in the DC Comics universe. He possesses the ability to drain the superhuman powers and abilities of others for his own use. He is primarily a foe of Superman.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_(comics)

A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of it. The biological interaction between the host and the parasite is called parasitism. Parasitism is a type of symbiosis, by one definition, although another definition of symbiosis excludes parasitism, since it requires that the host benefit from the interaction as well as the parasite.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite

an organism that grows, feeds, and lives on or in another organism to whose survival it contributes nothing.
www.nwtwildlife.com/Publications/diseasepamphletweb/glossary.htm

An organism that uses another organism for food and thus harms the other organism.
www.sustainableag.net/glossary_j-q.htm

An organism that lives inside or on another organism.
www.disted.mcw.edu/mpm/epidemic/glossary/glossary.htm

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
www.bestfriendspetcare.com/cat-glossary/cat-terms-P.cfm

an organism living on or in another living organism (host) and obtaining its food from the latter
www.inbar.int/publication/txt/tr10/glossary2.htm

A plant or animal that lives, grows and feeds on or within another living organism.
www.immunecentral.com/immune-system/iss33.cfm

An animal or plant living upon or in, and at the expense of, another organism. 150
www.bartleby.com/11/104.html

An organism that lives on or in an organism of a different species and derives nutrients from it.
www.planthealthcare.com/terms.html

An animal that lives part of all of it's life at the expense of the health of another animal (the host)
www.aquatext.com/list-p.htm

An animal or a plant that lives on or in an organism of another species and gets nutrients from it. A complete parasite gets all of its nutrients from the host organism, but a semi-parasite gets only some of its nutrients from the host.
www.stjude.org/glossary

An animal (or plant) that must live on or in an organism of another species, from which it draws its nourishment.
www.malariavaccine.org/mal-glossary.htm

an animal that lives in or on the body of another living animal
www.borealforest.org/insects/glossary.htm

an organism living in or deriving nourishment from another organism (adj. parasitic).
www.weeds.asn.au/gloss/new_gloss2.html

a organism that lives at the expense of its host.
www.icp.ucl.ac.be/~opperd/parasites/terms.htm

an organism that lives in or on the body of another organism and obtains nourishment from it.
wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/ipm/docs/envirowe/gloss.htm

Is a type of predator that kills its prey slowly. A typical parasite will lay its eggs inside the host (prey), thereby ensuring a constant supply of food for the developing larva.
www.pestking.com/glossary_of_terms.htm

An organism that is intimately associated with and metabolically dependent on another living organism (the host) for completion of its life cycle, and which is typically detrimental to the host.
biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/zy198.htm

[parasito] an organism living in or on another species to gain food at the expense of the host.
www.stanford.edu/group/Urchin/glossary.htm

An organism that derives its food from the body of another organism, the host, without killing the host directly; also an insect that spends its immature stages in the body of a host that dies just before the parasite emerges (this type is also called a parasitoid).
www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/glossary.html

Organism that lives in or on another organism and uses it as a source of food and shelter, so that the host is damaged.
www.biotechnology.gov.au/biotechnologyOnline/Resource/glossary.htm

An organism that absorbs nutrients from the body fluids of living hosts.
www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/biological_sciences/lab6/biolab6_gloss.html

An organism living in, with, or on another organism for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Glossary.htm

An organism that lives with, and obtains food from, another organism, usually to the detriment of the latter. Nestling martins have their feathers and skin eaten, and their blood sucked, by the following parasites: fleas, lice, nest mites, bed bugs, feather mites, blackflies, louse flies, mosquitoes, and blowfly larvae. See "ectoparasite."
www.purplemartin.org/main/Terminology.html

[pair-AH-site] an animal that lives on or in the body of another animal (its host), and which usually does not kill its host or consume a large proportion of its tissue.
members.aol.com/YESedu/glossary.html

Description: An organism that consumes part of the tissues of its host, usually without killing the host. Source: Specialized encyclopedia and dictionaries
europa.eu.int/comm/research/biosociety/library/glossarylist_en.cfm

reply from: yoda

That looks like a lot of work! What did it prove? What was your conclusion?

Can you name a single "parasite" in nature that is of the same species as it's host?

reply from: Jenny222

I can't beleive you would call a baby a parasite.

reply from: Dmourning

Amazing that you have a hard time grasping the points of view of others. This seems to be the problem with the prolife movement and christians in general.

reply from: ChristianLott

I can see D and Bobinsky as parasites to this forum, but not an innocent and defenseless baby.

reply from: Dmourning

You get more and more laughable as time goes on Lott.

An "innocent and defenseless baby" fits all of the definitions above. I guess you are too mired in baby worship to realize that. Bobinsky and I don't fit those definitions above. After all, we don't rely on this forum for our sustinence and survival.

reply from: bobinsky

The conclusion is that there are other definitionsn of the word "parasite" than you included in your post. And that you're too lazy or unmotivated to look farther than the one definition you found.

Can YOU look at the definitions I provided in the other post and tell me that your definition is the only correct one? Also, do you know the definition of the word "species"? As far as parasites in nature being fo the same species, I imagine I could look it up and give you an answer, but at this point in time, I feel disinclined to do so. So you run off now and tell everybody I dropped the ball, that I can't give an answer - whatever your story will be this time. I really don't give a crap. Point is, you were wrong in the first place and couldn't bother to admit it.
This is an interesting site describing parasites and how they find their hosts.
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/fea208.html

reply from: ChristianLott

This coming from the 'clown'.

Parasites have a way to change hosts. Babies do not.

Parasites live and grow and when they become too big or numerous, they kill the host. Babies do not.

Parasites will never intentionally leave a healthy host. Babies leave after their finished growing (usually nine months).

Now if a baby could himself reproduce inside a mothers womb, you might have something there, but untill then - you will just have to study your biology book and stop 'hollywood worshiping' the Matrix.

If you and Bobinsky left this forum, you could find another (hint,hint) - 'host'.

reply from: bobinsky

People only see what they want to see, D. And as far as I'm aware, Amber is the only christian on this forum.

reply from: bobinsky

I can tell your ass didn't grow up on a farm. Tell me, Lott, how intestinal/internal parasites change hosts.

Wow, your scientific grasp is amazing. You're missing two big points here, Einstein: not all parasites kill their hosts. If you have proof otherwise, show it. Also, parasites can be killed with different toxins, so not all of the live and grow.

A flea is a parasite; a mosquito is a parasite. Yet both of these external parasites jump from host to host.

reply from: Jenny222

Do you beleive in God, Bobinsky?

reply from: bobinsky

What makes you think this is any of your business? I would no more consider discussing my religious beliefs on this forum with you than I would consider giving you my social security number. Perhaps this is due to my psychosis.

reply from: sarah

What makes you think this is any of your business? I would no more consider discussing my religious beliefs on this forum with you than I would consider giving you my social security number. Perhaps this is due to my psychosis.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Odd, you didn't seem to mind asking about "Whosays" (not justsays) beliefs.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

justsays, do I take it by your sig that you consider yourself a christian?

reply from: bobinsky

Whosays, justsays - who cares? And this poster makes a statement about her religious belief. I'm merely confirming if s/he does indeed feel that she is inclinced toward christianity, since it doesn't show in her attitude.

reply from: sarah

Whosays, justsays - who cares? And this poster makes a statement about her religious belief. I'm merely confirming if s/he does indeed feel that she is inclinced toward christianity, since it doesn't show in her attitude.

Oh, sure.

reply from: yoda

Did ANY of the "other" definitions say that a parasite COULD be of the same species as it's host? Or did they simply not mention the host-parasite species relationship? Do you really expect a complete description of every word in every definition?

To quote another poster, you must be: "too lazy or unmotivated to look farther "

The truth, IMO is that you know quite well that all creatures in nature that are scientifically classified as parasitic do not attach themselves to other members of their species, you simply are too stubborn and proud to admit your mistake. That's quite all right, since you have no ability to admit error over anything, no matter how small, I will assume that you just quit a debate when you see that you are wrong.

reply from: yoda

Do either of these parasites attach themselves to other members of their species?

reply from: yoda

My, my, such anger! Or do you use profanity just for effect?

reply from: bobinsky

What the definitions that I provided showed were that you hand-picked definitions to match what you wanted people to believe. YOU were mistaken; YOU haven't admitted it yet. Did you read the website article I linked to? This talks about host/parasite relationships. I expect the definitions to reflect all of the possibilities which yours did not. So again, you were mistaken but won't admit it.

The point is, yoda, I looked much farther and did a more complete job of defining the word to include different possibilities and definitions. YOU did not look this far, but you did take the task of hand-picking your definitions to match your agenda. So if you want to talk about lazy, look in the mirrow. And as far as an inability to admit error, look again in the mirror.

reply from: yoda

And if "what I believe" is supported by the dictionaries, what's wrong with that?

This is not a contest of who can post the most irrelevant verbage. Since it is useless to ask you a specific question, I will ask other posters:

Has anyone ever heard of a parasite that feeds off members of it's own species?

reply from: ChristianLott

I said:

I'm talking about aspects of different parasites, not all species individually.

Calm down, relax - and stop cursing.

I'd like to know - who told you a baby is a parasite?

Okay, I'll take your word for it. If we exterminate all these parasites, we won't be here anymore. Now who's the parasite?

reply from: ChristianLott

Of course, I thought we were talking about INTERNAL parasites....

reply from: ChristianLott

With Bobinsky's definitions for things, the human race will be exterminated. By who? Ourselves.

Circular logic? No.

Suicidal? No.

Death wish? A little.

Irresponsible? Completely.

Ms Bobinsky can't even be taken as seriously as Sanger.

Get your head out of the movies and open up a book on basic biology.

Wait a second:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/0910728208/ref=lp_g_1//102-1377179-8244906?condition=all

reply from: chooselife

Oh fiddel faddle.

A fetus is is not COGNIZANT of itself. It is not capable of self-reflection. That's what consitutes human beings as we know them. At that point, yes - I'd would definitely consider talking them out of of.

The mental health discussions here really haven't been meaningful. There are people who do have impulses to take their life and I'd at least try to take to talk them out of it.

But then again, they are conscious and self-reflective and are not a parasite in someone else's body.

My mother is a manic depressive, bi-polar, borderline schizophrenic....I can assure you there were PLENTY of times growing up when my mother was not cognizant of herself or capable of self-reflection. Was she any less human??? When we try to define life so narrowly we open up the door to thinking that led us to logically conclude that Jews and slaves were not people. Power has a funny way of making people act unreasonably. What if a group were to become in power and suddenly you did not meet their quality of life standard? It is easy to dismiss another group when you are currently part of the group in power.

reply from: ChristianLott

When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of a human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out the same philosophy, it is called murder.

reply from: bobinsky

CL, I do my own research and don't rely on anyone to "tell" me what to believe. I garner knowledge from others, search, research, think, ruminate and make my decisions based on the best information available. Now, that said, I NEVER SAID A BABY IS A PARASITE. SOMEONE ELSE DID. NOT ME. Now that we've got that cleared up, I have some useful information on parasites from a very good source: my primary veterinarian. And to clear matters up about the baby/parasite business, my vet, who is Catholic, has a 16 month old son and a baby due in October said that, for all intents and purposes, a fetus can be termed a parasite, since it cannot live without a host, that being the mother, and it fits within the parameters of the parasite terminology. Dr. D. believe in honesty, though I doubt he went home to Mrs. Dr. D. and asked her how the parasite in her tummy is getting along. He thought for a minute about describing a woman/fetus situation as a symbiotic relationship, but the parameters don't fit.
So, concerning parasites and the question that yoda had was that yes, there are parasites that will feed on their own kind, but only in specific circumstances. And the type of parasites he referred to are those which are very low on the taxonomic scale, like parasites on parasites. So yes, a parasite will feed on it's own kind. In more advanced species, such as humans, this would be considered cannibalism. But the way these parasites feed on their own is parasitic, not cannibalistic.
So there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Yoda, were there any other questions we had about parasites?

reply from: chooselife

CL, I do my own research and don't rely on anyone to "tell" me what to believe. I garner knowledge from others, search, research, think, ruminate and make my decisions based on the best information available. Now, that said, I NEVER SAID A BABY IS A PARASITE. SOMEONE ELSE DID. NOT ME. Now that we've got that cleared up, I have some useful information on parasites from a very good source: my primary veterinarian. And to clear matters up about the baby/parasite business, my vet, who is Catholic, has a 16 month old son and a baby due in October said that, for all intents and purposes, a fetus can be termed a parasite, since it cannot live without a host, that being the mother, and it fits within the parameters of the parasite terminology. Dr. D. believe in honesty, though I doubt he went home to Mrs. Dr. D. and asked her how the parasite in her tummy is getting along. He thought for a minute about describing a woman/fetus situation as a symbiotic relationship, but the parameters don't fit.

So, concerning parasites and the question that yoda had was that yes, there are parasites that will feed on their own kind, but only in specific circumstances. And the type of parasites he referred to are those which are very low on the taxonomic scale, like parasites on parasites. So yes, a parasite will feed on it's own kind. In more advanced species, such as humans, this would be considered cannibalism. But the way these parasites feed on their own is parasitic, not cannibalistic.

So there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Yoda, were there any other questions we had about parasites?

Can we not all agree that what most of consider to be a parasite is not what we consider to be in the belly of a pregnant woman??? Now as a teenager my father considered me to be a parasite that fed off of his wallet....but this is another story. If the baby is a parasite that is feeding off "its own kind" then the parasite is a human (because what else would "its own kind" be) that is living and should be protected. I feel like I am listening to my 6 and 7 year old..."YES IT IS!!"..."NO IT ISN'T"..."YES IT IS!!."....."NO IT ISN'T!!!!"......MMMMOOOOMMMMM!!

reply from: ChristianLott

Yes, so in other words - you still rely on what people say.

Yet you defend this foolishness?

That you didn't say it, but you'd like to defend it. Yes, it's all coming together now.

Obviously more competent than world class Nobel prize winning doctors and scientists who made up this language in the first place.

I know, you're vet has found new and better ways to use the term 'parasite'....

"since it cannot live without a host"

So that's it? As a Catholic maybe your vet is familiar with accepting the heavenly host at communion. Ask him if he believes since Jesus is host, all who accept the sacrament are parasites.

OK. It's okay to call a baby a parasite, but the 'parameters don't fit' for symbiosis? He's a quack, and I fault you for believing him.

Stop defending the absurd before you run straight into that wall just a few posts away, Bobinsky.

Let's stop here. So now cannibalism and having babies correlate?

OK. Body and Blood of Christ equals cannibalism and conception equals affliction.

Thus ended the human race.

Fascinating.

Subhumanity of the Victims

"The Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars personify a repulsive yet characteristic subhumanity." (Dr. August Hirt, 1942) "For the first four and one-half months the fetus is subhuman and relatively close to a piece of tissue." (Amitai Etzioni, Ph.D., 1976)

"It had nothing to do with humanity — it was a mass. I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass." (Franz Stangl, former commandant of Treblinka, 1971) "What is aborted is a protoplasmic mass and not a real, live grown-up individual." (Drs. Walter Char & John McDermott, 1972)

"Whenever Jews are left to themselves they bring brutal misery and depravity. They are pure parasites." (Adolf Hitler, 1943) "A parasite can commit murder, what attention has Catholic thinking or the law given to the fetus’s capacity to murder its mother?" (Dr. Natalie Shainess, 1968)

"If it is now pointed out that the Jew is human, I then reject that totally." (Antisemitic speech, Reichstag, 1895) "It is a wild contention that new-born babies are persons." (Dr. Michael Tooley, 1972)

reply from: yoda

Source, please?

reply from: bobinsky

Ah, Yoda, my source was my veterinarian who spent many, many hours studying parisitology in vet school. I mentioned him in my post. His authority is good enough for me. You want more, go look for it.

reply from: bobinsky

As I said, CL, I do my own research, information-seeking, thinking, sifting through what's available for knowledge, and from this, I form my own opinions and beliefs. I don't rely on anyone to help me for my opinions. And, unlike you, I look at very many varieties of sources, separate the wheat from the chaff, and make my own conclusions. Nobody speaks for me but me.

Yoda and I were discussing parasites. He asked a question. I went to a source -a sound, competent source - to get my answer. I am defending nothing; I merely passed the info on to yoda. He will reject it as he always does so big deal.

He's an honors grad of Notre Dame University and Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine. He studied from the textbooks of these scientists who made up this language. He studied under some of the best minds in the veterinary profession, so yes, he is exceptionally competent, much more so than ANY of us on this forum to be prepared to answer the questions I posed. TS if you don't like it. But you're certainly offering nothing in the way of scientific evidence.

We are through conversing, dialoguing, debating, discussing, whatever, on this forum. Feel free to post to me or respond to my posts, but I will not be respond to you again.
The fact that you bring up and denigrate the Catholic faith to attempt to make some insipid point shows just exactly how low you go. The discussion of the Catholic faith does not belong on this board, nor does your dislike of the faith.
I have only to look at your posts on other forums to realize what you are, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and I was foolish for doing so. You have the right to make many statements, you have the right to your beliefs, but you've overstepped your bounds. As I said, we are through.

reply from: yoda

I have looked, and I haven't found any. So, I'll just mark that one down as the expression of someone's opinion.

reply from: bobinsky

Mandi, I'm sorry to hear of your mother's mental health issues. Did/does she receive the help she needs from mental health professionals? No one should live like this without getting help. Because she suffered from mental health issues does not make her any less human. But there is a vast divide between the issues your mother deals with and the fact that a fetus is not cognizant, nor has been since conception. Comparison of the two is fair to your mother.

reply from: bobinsky

First of all, maybe you're not looking in the right locations. This would be your fault and not the web's. Also, I go to a direct source who has the knowledge of the issue that we both admittedly lack, give his honest, informed, educated answer, and since YOU are unable to verify what an educated physician has stated, you don't acceept the answer. This is what I've mentioned in several different posts. After reading the old threads, yoda's old trick is to disavow any answer given him, so he can keep hammering on about how no one answers his questions; people keep dropping the ball. Well, I gave you the answer, I didn't drop the ball and it's TS that you're so arrogant you can't so past the end of your . . . nose. That's okay, because this way you can keep telling yourself you're right and you won't have to admit to lack of knowledge or that perhaps you're incorrect.

reply from: yoda

My, my, such anger! My post to you was completely civil and contained no accusations, and yet you see the need to call me names and rave on about my "trick". Why would a calm discussion of an academic subject such as this evoke such an emotional outburst from you?

I posted a valid, linked definition that established what I claimed, and you posted your recollection of a conversation you say you had with a vet. As far as I'm concerned, any claims and/or statements made here without links or other documentation are to be considered "opinion" unless otherwise proven, and that includes my posts.

And I do hope you'll get better control of your emotions.

reply from: chooselife

The following was obtained from webmd's site in a Q&A concerning pregnancy...

Q. Won't the baby just take what it needs from me, regardless of what I eat?

A. The fetus does not act like a parasite. What you eat is important. The mother's diet and nutrient stores need to be adequate to meet her own needs as well as those of the growing fetus. For most nutrients, if the available supply of energy or nutrient is low, it's the mother who gets "first dibs" on the available supply. This built-in system for energy and nutrient allocation during pregnancy fosters the well-being of the mother over that of the fetus, thereby promoting the health of the reproducer first. Infants have been born with various vitamin deficiency diseases to women who show no such deficiencies.

The next bit of info is long but I think is well deserving of a read.

William Brennan is a professor in the St. Louis University School of Social Service. His most recent book, Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives, is a Loyola University Press bestseller in its third printing.

As children we sang, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt A. me." We were wrong. Violent words pave the way for violent deeds. Name-calling is an indispensable component of all levels of oppression, from discrimination to segregation to enslavement to outright annihilation.

The annihilation started by Roe v. Wade large-scale, legal killing of humans before birth persists unabated, and numerous explanations have been advanced for this tragic state of affairs: rampant materialism, the sexual revolution, a narcissistic culture, a pervasive sense of alienation, the lack of moral absolutes, the decline of religion, an encroaching culture of death, and a media elite beholden to the abortion establishment. All these likely play a role in keeping Roe v. Wade the law of the land. But name-calling - degrading language - is central to the success of this contemporary war on the unborn.

Thoughtful and perceptive people inside and outside today's multicultural and diversity movements have aroused the public's consciousness to the impact of toxic speech on a wide range of vulnerable individuals and groups. Vigilance has often been deformed into vigilanteism, however. There is a growing brigade of politically correct thought-controllers in academia and other influential circles. Surely, PC speech vigilantes capable of detecting the "his-" in "history" as offensive to women, "gypped" as insulting to Gypsies, "beat the drums" as insensitive to Native Americans, and "pet" as degrading to animals, could be relied upon to root out every possible offending word or phrase! Yet the monitors of linguistic propriety remain oblivious to one of the most hate-inducing and violence-provoking nomenclatures ever constructed - the invective created to justify the killing of unborn humans.

Much anti-fetal terminology is intended to label the unborn as insignificant: mere cells, material, tissue, or nondescript matter. Feminist writer Naomi Wolf places these terms under the "fetus means nothing" rubric, a rhetoric manufactured by the Second Wave feminists who, Wolf asserts responded to "the dehumanization of women by dehumanizing the creatures within them."

In addition to this lexicon of trivialization, there is a wide array of degrading expressions used to paint a positively malevolent portrait of human life before birth: parasitic creature, virulent disease, infected body part, and noxious waste product. Leading feminists, physicians, and scientists assiduously portray the unborn as parasitic creatures. Rosalind Pollack Petchesky maintains "the fetus is a parasite" because it contributes nothing to the woman, but only drains nutrients, blood, and energy. Rachel Conrad Wahlberg maligns the preborn as "a parasitical, " "entirely subhuman," and "cannibalistic" being that "feeds on the mother's body." According to abortion doctor Warren Hem, the relationship between the pregnant woman and the fetus "can be understood best as one of host and parasite." From this he defines abortion as a "defense mechanism" against the "local invasion" and accompanying "deleterious effects of the parasite." The late scientific popularizer Carl Sagan considered the unborn "a kind of parasite" that "destroys tissue" and "sucks blood from capillaries."

Petchesky's characterizations appear in Abortion and Woman's Choice, published by Northeastern University Press; Wahlberg's in the periodical New Women/New Church (Sept.-Oct. 1987); and Hem's in Abortion Practice, a J.B. Lippincott publication. Sagan's caricature can be found, not in some obscure journal, but in the widely circulated Sunday supplement Parade Magazine (April 22,1990).

These fearsome and threatening images show signs of becoming increasingly rooted in our society. They also share a striking kinship with the derogatory language invoked against some of history's most reviled victims - persons deemed expendable in prior times. Women's liberation foremother Simone de Beauvoir called the full-time female homemaker "a parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism." Hitler repeatedly vilified Jews as "the typical parasite" and "a true bloodsucker." Lenin and Stalin labeled independent farmers "parasitic kulaks" who "sucked the blood of the working people." Some slaveowners in the U.S. viewed African-Americans as an "essentially parasitic" race in need of bondage for survival.

There has been a movement to make the definitions of pregnancy as a disease and the unborn as an infection into medical dogma. In 1976 Dr. Willard Cates and colleagues from the Centers for Disease Control presented before the Planned Parenthood Physicians of America a paper entitled "Abortion as a Treatment for Unwanted Pregnancy: The Number Two Sexually Transmitted 'Disease."' Cates assured his audience that "abortion is 10 times more effective" for treating the "sexually transmitted condition" of unwanted pregnancy "than is penicillin for treating gonorrhea." Several years later, situation-ethics founder Joseph Fletcher asserted: "Pregnancy when not wanted is a disease, in fact a venereal disease." Planned Parenthood luminary Dr. Alan Guttmacher likened abortion to "operating on an appendix or removing a gangrenous bowel."

These malevolent metaphors are constructed to endow killing with the compelling respectability of mainstream medicine. This is nothing other than the medicalization of destruction whereby lethal operations are classified as medical procedures and their victims are defined as diseases. At Auschwitz Dr. Joseph Mengele called the gassing of inmates "the intensive struggle against the propagation of infection" and Dr. Fritz Mein compared the extermination of Jews to removing "a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body." Lenin portrayed those who strayed from Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy as "dangerous diseases," "epidemics," and "abscesses" contaminating the organism of the Party. The American Colonization Society, a proponent of dispatching black people back to Africa, characterized African-Americans as "a contagion."

Relegation of undesired preborn humans to the noisome level of "waste," "garbage," and "refuse" constitutes another way of depicting the unborn as repulsive and potentially hazardous matter that must be disposed of immediately. This mode of denigration is considered particularly apt since dismembered aborted bodies often share the same ultimate fate as real waste products: incineration. A coroner's report issued in 1982 concluded that 16,500 aborted bodies discovered outside Los Angeles in a metal storage container did not involve "evidence of foul play" but amounted only to the disposal of medical waste." Finnish only researcher Dr. Martti Kekomaki rationalized the harvesting of fetal organs with the statement, "an aborted baby is just garbage ... just refuse." Harper's editor Lewis Lapham furnished an identical rationale in support of the use of fetal brain tissue to treat Alzheimer's patients: "We're talking about a waste product here: thousands of fetuses are discarded every day."

The Nazis similarly harvested what they could .from the Jews whom their semanticists dubbed "garbage," "rubbish," and "waste" - then they disposed of them in crematory ovens. After visiting the Warsaw ghetto in 1939, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels reported to Hitler: "The Jew is a waste product." In the Soviet Union, at the Great Purge Trial of 1938, prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky called those being tried "a foul-smelling heap of human garbage." in 1681 Virginia planter William Fitzhugh referred to physically incapacitated slaves as "the refuse."

Another feature intrinsic to the degrading terms applied to our unborn - besides their revolting resemblance to the derogatory labels of times past - is their blatant duplicity. As far back as September 1970, a prophetic editorial in California Medicine used the phrase "semantic gymnastics" to describe the promotion of abortion. The editorial not only acknowledged "the very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life," but also concluded that "this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary" in order to obtain widespread acceptance of abortion.

Similarly, during an atypical foray into the world of truth-telling, Naomi Wolf has actually admitted that the feminist movement's obsession with "depersonalizing the fetus" is founded on "self-delusions, fibs, and evasions" leading to "a hardness of heart."

Astronomer Sagan's vampirish portrayal, above, of the unborn as a blood-sucking parasite is absurd. An independent fetal circulatory system is established very early in pregnancy. Never is there any intermingling of blood between the maternal and fetal circulatory systems; each is separate and distinct. The unborn human often has a blood type different from that of the mother. Furthermore, the relationship between mother and unborn child is an overwhelmingly natural and mutually beneficial one, indispensable for the survival of the human race. While Sagan knew a great deal about the nature of the distant stars, his understanding of human development left much to be desired.

The project of calling the unborn an infectious disease is, of course, running head-on into scientific reality. Spectacular developments in fetology, fetal surgery, and ultrasonography are forging powerful, personalized images of the passenger within the womb, an individual whom Williams Obstetrics (a standard medical school textbook) calls "a patient who should be given the same meticulous care by the physician that we long ago have given the pregnant woman." Each advance in fetal therapy crystallizes the stark contradiction between the therapeutic medicine of the fetologist and the exterminatory medicine of the abortionist. Every time an unborn child is the beneficiary of treatment formerly confined to those outside the womb, the spotlight on the undeniable humanity of preborn life gets a little brighter.

One wonders how long it will take before the legally approved abortion culture - mired in hateful, degrading, and anachronistic definitions of the fetus - gives way to the life-affirming perceptions of the unborn brought about by the opening up of new windows into the womb by ultrasound, fetoscopy, and hysteroscopy. The fact that abortion continues at the global rate of 45 million to 60 million annually - even in the face of revolutionary developments in fetal surgery - is an alarming testimonial to the power of dehumanizing rhetoric.

In his classic essay "Politics and the English Language, " George Orwell warned about the destruction of our minds and our culture by euphemisms and slogans. The tyrannical, thought-stifling world depicted in Orwell's novel 1984 was a place of mendacious rhetoric where the heresy of heresies was to speak plainly. The first and most basic defense against today's totalitarian terminology aimed at unborn humans is likewise plain speaking.

Plain speaking must challenge the entrenched false rhetoric on two fronts. (1) The derisive expressions must be exposed as an outrageous and insidious brand of hate speech concocted to further the pro-abortion agenda by inducing in pregnant women fear of and loathing for their preborn offspring. (2) The disparaging designations need to be discredited by documenting how closely they echo the most extreme forms of murderous name-calling in the annals of humanity.

We must expose, in order to end, the war of words directed against human beings inside the womb. Although the cessation of verbal hostilities will not alone halt the murder of the unborn, it would be a quantum leap toward ensuring that our definition of humanity embraces all human lives, whatever their status, condition, or stage of development.

Pope John Paul II's magisterial encyclical The Gospel of Life is an example of such an expansive definition of humanity. His words affirming the intrinsic dignity and sacredness of all human lives, especially the most defenseless individuals, are the cornerstone of his evangelical program for replacing the culture of death with a new and enduring civilization of life and love. "Now more than ever," the Pope urges, we need "to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their rightful names "

reply from: yoda

"As far back as September 1970, a prophetic editorial in California Medicine used the phrase "semantic gymnastics" to describe the promotion of abortion. The editorial not only acknowledged "the very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life," but also concluded that "this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary" in order to obtain widespread acceptance of abortion.

Similarly, during an atypical foray into the world of truth-telling, Naomi Wolf has actually admitted that the feminist movement's obsession with "depersonalizing the fetus" is founded on "self-delusions, fibs, and evasions" leading to "a hardness of heart."

Truer words were never spoken........

reply from: Tam

Hear, hear!!

I mean it--but maybe I should phrase it differently...

Listen, listen!!

(Aside: are semantic gymnastics "akin to lying"?)

reply from: yoda

Yep. They're first cousins once removed, or maybe step-sisters.

reply from: ChristianLott

I did not and would never attempt such a thing. I was wondering how your vet correlates the belief in babies being parasites to his belief in Christ.

In believing the first, he must believe the second. You brought up he was Catholic, I say he is not.

You mentioned he was Catholic. He is not if he believes babies can be classified as parasites. Heck, he can't even be considered a scientist.

You're misreading of my post seems almost purposeful. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was another of your intimidation tactics.

Threat followed by personal attack. The 'ol Bobinsky one-two.

This is the 'regret' follow up. I'm supposed to be weeping right now.

Do you mean it? Is this really the end? The end of what, may I ask?

reply from: sarah

If you're keeping score, CL you can chalk this debate up to a win for yourself.

reply from: ChristianLott

And one less for Hitler.

Can I still call myself a Catholic? Do I have permission?

reply from: yoda

And there you have it: classify something as a parasite, and then kill them as fast as you can.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

Aren't human beings in general technically parasites?

We live off the world and will destroy it and each other in time.

reply from: whosays

Topic title: "Suicide Okay?"

If you want a yes answer, you'll have to ask someone who is pro-choice.

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

“Originally posted by: bobinsky . The line is quite clear: your body, your choice.”

Werd, now there's a catchy slogan

Abortion advocates say that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

The whole "Who decides?" slogan is the brainchild of Frank Greer, a Democratic media consultant who developed this marketing ploy for the National Abortion Rights Action League.

"Who decides?" is like, "You've got the right one, baby," or "Finger-lickin' good," or "Coke is it." It is an advertising slogan, pure and simple. Greer would have come up with something just as catchy to sell underarm deodorant if he'd been paid to do so. Given a couple of million dollars, he could probably come up with an ad campaign to get people to want a toxic waste dump in their community.

To just nod your head, "Sounds good to me," in response to "Who decides?" is like brainlessly humming a commercial jingle as you go off to buy some product you don't even want.

When you hear, "Who decides?" you can either behave like a mind-numbed robot, or you can examine the product--abortion--and decide for yourself if this is a good thing that we want in our community. Or is it more like that toxic waste dump?

reply from: whosays

Needs a theme song.

Taps?

Terminator soundtrack??

Jaws???

reply from: yoda

Instead of "Who decides?", the issue is "Who dies?".

reply from: ChristianLott

SB wrote:

The world has destroyed many people with volcanoes. The world is a parasite.

Our plan is to not destroy the world.

Can't we just live and get along?

Is symbiosis and synergy too much to ask?

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

Pardon? The world a parasite because of volcanoes?

I look at the volcanic eruptions as the worlds pesticide.

The world doesn't live off us, it isn't sustained by us. To kill us would be in its best interest though.

We may not plan to destroy the world, but to be comfortable, we overlook the damage we're doing to it.

If this carries on, who knows. Perhaps our great great grandchildren will suffer for our greed. ...At least then there would be no one to worry about abortions.

reply from: bobinsky

What an interesting thought, SB. You are right - the world, the earth, does not need us. It never has. Look what we've done to the earth. Many, many persons just take from the earth and give nothing back except a little oxygen. Big deal. So yes, many people can be looked at as parasites of the earth, especially those that don't care about the health of the environment and keep polluting and support polluters and government programs that support the biggest polluters.

Many people live in the "now" rather than the future; this could be said about anti-choicers. You are definitely right, SB, generations from now, someone will be suffering for the greed of certain many people.

reply from: yoda

Interesting comment. Yes, humans can be self-destructive, and can leave a bitter legacy for their descendants.

So do you see abortion as a part of that legacy, or just a side note?

reply from: yoda

What does that mean, "certain many people"?

reply from: bobinsky

The people, those certain ones, who don't give a rip about the environment and what is happening to it. They live in the here and now and don't care about what the future might bring or not bring for our descendants.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics