Bill Nye to Anti-Abortionists: "You Literally Don't Know What You're Talking About"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I fundamentally disagree with considering an early term fetus the same as a born child, but further than that. I don't think we can require people to have what amounts to a parasitic relationship even to another full human, to ensure that others survival.

Legally, I can agree that fetuses shouldn't be granted personhood. But morally, we both know they are. Just like morally, we know the death penalty is ****ed up....but legally, its not.

Originally posted by long pig
Like Siamese twins? You do realize one twin can't kill the other, right? Its murder.

Legally, I can agree that fetuses shouldn't be granted personhood. But morally, we both know they are. Just like morally, we know the death penalty is ****ed up....but legally, its not.

I'm not sure if there is a case where one conjoined twin wanted a separation and the other did not. Interestingly there has been a case in the UK, where a court ruled that one conjoined twins right to life trumps the others if one can survive being separated while the other can not (i.e. completely in line with my argument (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82566&page=1)).

So, can one conjoined twin just kill the other? No...but they can possibly get a government to enforce their separation against the will of the other conjoined twin...which is in essence what abortion is, the separation of two fused organisms, one of which can not generally survive without that connection.

Also, no, I morally don't think fetuses are people.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's not a parasitic relationship. that's just another attempt to misuse scientific language in order to make killing a human seem more acceptable.

a parasitic relationship is by definition between species. a parent/child relationship doesn't qualify.

I did choose the wording of "it amounts to", rather than "it is", for that very reason. It is a one sided relationship where one side gets all the benefit and the other the detriment, the only difference is that it is within a species.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure if there is a case where one conjoined twin wanted a separation and the other did not. Interestingly there has been a case in the UK, where a court ruled that one conjoined twins right to life trumps the others if one can survive being separated while the other can not (i.e. completely in line with my argument (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82566&page=1)).

So, can one conjoined twin just kill the other? No...but they can possibly get a government to enforce their separation against the will of the other conjoined twin...which is in essence what abortion is, the separation of two fused organisms, one of which can not generally survive without that connection.

Also, no, I morally don't think fetuses are people.

You know, I could say something about another group of humans that were thought of as parasites and not people back in the day. Ironically, by a German, too (one has to think that after such a mistake in one's history, that they'd be a bit more careful about committing the same mistake again, bet meh.). But I'd rather not get into that.

Just wanted to say that I think almost EVERY pro-lifer (save for the most crazy extreme ones) would agree that whenever the parent (and especially when it is both the parent and the child) live's are at risk, they would 100% be ok with aborting the birth.

The article was about saving who we can. There is no reason for both to die when one can live. This article touches on a subject that BOTH pro-life and pro-choice moderates can (and have) agree on.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You know, I could say something about another group of humans that were thought of as parasites and not people back in the day. Ironically, by a German, too (one has to think that after such a mistake in one's history, that they'd be a bit more careful about committing the same mistake again, bet meh.). But I'd rather not get into that.

Just wanted to say that I think almost EVERY pro-lifer (save for the most crazy extreme ones) would agree that whenever the parent (and especially when it is both the parent and the child) live's are at risk, they would 100% be ok with aborting the birth.

The article was about saving who we can. There is no reason for both to die when one can live. This article touches on a subject that BOTH pro-life and pro-choice moderates can (and have) agree on.

Yeah, you could compare people who don't agree with you to Hitler, and you wouldn't even be the first one on the internet to do so.

At any rate, the moment your arguments will start to make sense is the moment you will be required to donate bone marrow, blood and kidneys to anyone who these things could help, as it stands, that is not something we require of people in western societies.

Fetuses aren't people..they are fetuses. But I mean hell lets take this to the extremes. Every sperm cell has the potential to create life. So if a man jerks off one day..is that some sort of crime against humanity? After all..that sperm could of gone towards babies and shit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure if there is a case where one conjoined twin wanted a separation and the other did not. Interestingly there has been a case in the UK, where a court ruled that one conjoined twins right to life trumps the others if one can survive being separated while the other can not (i.e. completely in line with my argument (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82566&page=1)).

So, can one conjoined twin just kill the other? No...but they can possibly get a government to enforce their separation against the will of the other conjoined twin...which is in essence what abortion is, the separation of two fused organisms, one of which can not generally survive without that connection.

Also, no, I morally don't think fetuses are people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did choose the wording of "it amounts to", rather than "it is", for that very reason. It is a one sided relationship where one side gets all the benefit and the other the detriment, the only difference is that it is within a species.

let me ask you... say a girl is 8 months pregnant... and the fetus poses no known health risks to her but isn't viable for birth yet. you would say she could kill the fetus if she wanted to because the fetus is living inside her? yes or no

Originally posted by red g jacks
parenting is generally a one sided relationship, in terms of the flow of resources. the parent supports the child, and the only real return on that (besides any emotional returns you might derive) is that the child continues to grow and develop. it's still not the same as a parasite which literally holds no biological value for the host. your offspring, by definition, do hold biological value. so i'd say its not a very apt comparison.

let me ask you... say a girl is 8 months pregnant... and the fetus poses no known health risks to her but isn't viable for birth yet. you would say she could kill the fetus if she wanted to because the fetus is living inside her? yes or no

Yes, a parental relationship between a child and the parent is different from the bodily connection more akin to a parasitical one that a fetus has to its mother (although the former relationship can also be severed via adoption for example).

In your scenario I would find it ideal to induce labor rather than destroy the fetus. Giving it the chance to survive without relying on another person's body. I'm not really for late term abortions, unless the mothers life is in danger.

But fundamentally I don't think it is right to force a person to be physically connected for sustenance to another person (even if it is an actually fully grown person), so a separation, if so desired, should be an option.

Originally posted by long pig
The UK is full of backwood bucktoothed homosexuals. I don't care what they do.

This is again the sort of pointless comment that does not belong in the GDF. Cut it out.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, a parental relationship between a child and the parent is different from the bodily connection more akin to a parasitical one that a fetus has to its mother (although the former relationship can also be severed via adoption for example).

In your scenario I would find it ideal to induce labor rather than destroy the fetus. Giving it the chance to survive without relying on another person's body. I'm not really for late term abortions, unless the mothers life is in danger.

But fundamentally I don't think it is right to force a person to be physically connected for sustenance to another person (even if it is an actually fully grown person), so a separation, if so desired, should be an option.

in that case, however, it's somehow acceptable to force a woman to endure childbirth, which is arguably the most difficult/painful aspect of pregnancy and poses the largest burden on the body in question?

i agree with your decision but this is somewhat curious to me.

and i'm sympathetic to letting people control their own bodies and perhaps more importantly their own reproductive habits, but there must be a moral dilemma present if you agree that there is something not so ideal about killing late term fetuses. clearly they must be more than just "a lump of cells" at that point, as many would often label them.

the dilemma for me is that current laws allow abortions as late as 6 months... yet i know people who were born after 6-7 months. it seems there's a very thin line between what we as a society consider a "person" and "just a lump of cells," and clearly just the fact that it exists in the womb doesn't necessarily strip them of their personhood. in which case it seems like nothing short of murder to kill them. at the very least, i would say it seems little different from murdering a newborn. you can say you can give the newborn up for adoption... but you can also carry the fetus to term/induce birth and then give it up for adoption. it's just perhaps a bit less convenient. but if these fetuses are people then it seems a bit callous to say we can kill them for the sake of convenience.

i agree btw that abortions that are carried out early on are much less problematic, morally speaking. but then why not force people to make the decision earlier? making the exception for problematic pregnancies where the woman's life might be threatened... as i would think that falls under some vague sort of "self defense"

also, with regard to the idea that a born child resembles a parasite less because they don't live inside the womb... i would pose the counter point that having an organism live inside another organism is not what defines a parasitic relationship, and many parasites don't live inside their host. on the other hand, many organisms live inside you which are not parasites but rather have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with you. i would say your unborn child is closer to this second scenario, as they exist as a biological means to spread your genes, which is essentially the reason you exist as an organism in the first place.

#notparasites #checkyourbornpriviledge #fightfetusphobia

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you could compare people who don't agree with you to Hitler, and you wouldn't even be the first one on the internet to do so. .

I didn't call you Hitler, I'm saying with your history you should know better.

But I guess this kind of subject matter really gets me riled up so I think I'll just step out of it to avoid escalating.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I didn't call you Hitler, I'm saying with your history you should know better.

But I guess this kind of subject matter really gets me riled up so I think I'll just step out of it to avoid escalating.

Originally posted by red g jacks
also, with regard to the idea that a born child resembles a parasite less because they don't live inside the womb... i would pose the counter point that having an organism live inside another organism is not what defines a parasitic relationship, and many parasites don't live inside their host. on the other hand, many organisms live inside you which are not parasites but rather have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with you. i would say your unborn child is closer to this second scenario, as they exist as a biological means to spread your genes, which is essentially the reason you exist as an organism in the first place.

#notparasites #checkyourbornpriviledge #fightfetusphobia

lol, sure we can take that comparison to its full logical extend. A fetus is definitely more like an epiparasite, which I think is sort of the ideal of a parasite that people think of when they talk about parasites. You make a good point about a born child being pretty much a social parasite though. And social parasites can potentially be of the same species as well, so that's may not even be a comparison, but an apt description.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You compared me to Hitler, don't pussyfoot around it. Pretending like that's not exactly what you wanted to say is silly.

No, I drew parallels on flawed ideas in history and wondered why you are still falling into such ways of thinking.

But be my guest, think what you want. Don't let facts bother you. After all, I guess I never wrote:

"one has to think that after such a mistake in one's history, that they'd be a bit more careful about committing the same mistake again, bet meh."

@ bardock

except it seems to ignore that spreading genes is ultimately the end goal of any organism...

the idea of a parasite exists because one organism taking resources from another, without doing anything for the genetic lineage of that organism, is not seen as beneficial to the organism in question

this logic doesn't extend to fetuses/children because they are the basic biological end goal for the organism in question

it's not just a matter of species, in this case... if you were supporting children that didn't carry your genes you might call them parasites (though i doubt that would win you much love from people who have empathy). but to call your own progeny a parasite is completely irrational from a biological perspective.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No, I drew parallels on flawed ideas in history and wondered why you are still falling into such ways of thinking.

But be my guest, think what you want. Don't let facts bother you. After all, I guess I never wrote:

"one has to think that after such a mistake in one's history, that they'd be a bit more careful about committing the same mistake again, bet meh."

Yeah, yeah, but you also said "You know, I could say something about another group of humans that were thought of as parasites and not people back in the day. Ironically, by a German, too (one has to think that after such a mistake in one's history, that they'd be a bit more careful about committing the same mistake again, bet meh." which is saying that I make the same mistake as Hitler, so maybe cut the bullshit.

Originally posted by red g jacks
@ bardock

except it seems to ignore that spreading genes is ultimately the end goal of any organism...

the idea of a parasite exists because one organism taking resources from another, without doing anything for the genetic lineage of that organism, is not seen as beneficial to the organism in question

this logic doesn't extend to fetuses/children because they are the basic biological end goal for the organism in question

Human morality and laws are based on rights of individuals, not rights of genes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, yeah, but you also said "You know, I could say something about another group of humans that were thought of as parasites and not people back in the day. Ironically, by a German, too (one has to think that after such a mistake in one's history, that they'd be a bit more careful about committing the same mistake again, bet meh." so maybe cut the bullshit.

Yes, Hitler was German and yes he thought about the parasite thing.

And yes you a Bardock, a German and yes you think fetuses are parasites too (w/c dehumanizes them).

You as a German should know better as your history should already tell you that at one point, this kind of mentality cost a lot of lives.

I stand by my interpretation of what I said, and I think I've clarified it enough. Bear in mind, if I wanted to call you a nazi/Hitler, you'd know about it, I won't be subtle and I won't hesitate as I don't really care how you feel.

YOU, however, can insert whatever interpretation you want, we all know how being offended about prejuce-y things help you sleep at night.