|
Post by BOGC on Jul 27, 2024 22:50:59 GMT -5
As far as I understand it, a parasite is an organism that feeds of the host. A parasite is generally unwanted by the host. One difference between a parasite that lives off a non-human host and a parasite that lives off a human host is that the human host had a chance to never get the parasite in the first place. In the case of the human parasite, aren't we leaving out the personal responsibilty of the woman and her husband/boyfriend? Biology defines "parasite" by its function. Whether is is wanted and how it got there are totally irrelevant to its definition. The next generation: either all of them are parasites, or none are. At least until they become adults and either welfare queens (parasites) or productive citizens (not parasites).
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 27, 2024 22:51:40 GMT -5
Calling ai fetus a parasite 🦠is so wrong on so many levels a fetus turns into a baby we’re as a parasite 🦠will always remain a parasite 🦠!
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 27, 2024 22:54:40 GMT -5
I'm saying that an unwanted child was an unwanted parasite when it was in the uterus. What's in the uterus is exactly the same thing whether the mother wants it or not. They're indistinguishable. There are situations when the mother changes her mind about the baby. The baby can be unwanted for awhile in the womb, but sometimes the mother changes her mind when she sees an ultrasound. There could be a situation when a mother carried her wanted baby for 9 months, but at the last minute changed her mind because she realized the econoic impact of her decision. In this situation, the baby was wanted for almost 9 months, but then spend a few minutes as an unwanted parasite. The math gets tricky.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jul 27, 2024 22:57:06 GMT -5
Trump's going to stomp her in November. Agreed. In fact, I tell all my Republican friends that it's a landslide and they don't have to bother to vote. You don't have to either. LOL Well, we'd better vote anyway, you know, just in case. Can't take any chances on the single most unequipped to be president politician alive getting anywhere near that Oval Office. Terrifying thought.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 27, 2024 22:57:32 GMT -5
OK, it was a little confusing, because you said this earlier: A wanted child is far more than just a parasite. But an unwanted child is just a parasite. And in the real world, there are lots of unwanted children. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ I'm pretty sure you meant fetus instead of child, because in my mind, a child is a born human. But I don't understand how a wanted child (fetus) can be any more or less than an unwanted child (fetus). That doesn't make sense to me.I think he means that if the child isn't wanted, the mother might tell herself that it's a parasite to help to ease her guilty conscience when she kills is. That makes sense. It's hard to understand why liberals are so anti-human. The great majorty of people alive are glad that they were not aborted. Even the ones that were unwanted babies in the womb
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 27, 2024 23:02:57 GMT -5
But I don't understand how a wanted child (fetus) can be any more or less than an unwanted child (fetus). That doesn't make sense to me. "Wanted" or "unwanted" is entirely in the mind of the mother. In the mind of the mother, an unwanted fetus is just a parasite. A wanted fetus is much more. If I interpret what you are saying here: - a wanted fetus is more than a parasite (but is not a biological parasite) because of the mindset of the mother. - an unwanted is only a parasite What about if the mother was carrying twins? The mother wants only one of the two babies. Does that mean one of the babies is a parasite and the other is more than a parasite?
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 27, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Most reasonable people allow abortion in the first 2 trimesters. Or up to about 15 weeks...somewhere in that 2nd trimester anyway. Many would be squeamish at the thought of aborting a five to six month old fetus for example. But agree, there is a point somewhere that the majority finds acceptable. Really the only debate is exactly where that line should be drawn. I think most reasonable allow abortion in the first trimester for sure, and probably early 2nd trimester. The majority is wrong (usually is, most people are not on the high side of the bell curve). Push it back as early as is detectable. "Viable" is a moving target, given technological advancement. But the premise that viable defines human simply because it ends the total dependency, is flawed. Viability is now earlier than it once was. That did not suddenly make those a few weeks earlier become human, they were ALWAYS human. Anything that could become a specific human, already is human. Alabama Supreme Court said that (in Alabama) a frozen embryo (for IVF) is a person. At least some place has the courage to stand for the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 27, 2024 23:14:42 GMT -5
I think he means that if the child isn't wanted, the mother might tell herself that it's a parasite to help to ease her guilty conscience when she kills is. That makes sense. It's hard to understand why liberals are so anti-human. The great majorty of people alive are glad that they were not aborted. Even the ones that were unwanted babies in the womb So true. My neighbor and her brother were both adopted as babies, they're in their mid-60's now. Neither ever had any desire to find their biological mothers but were grateful that abortion wasn't legal at the time of their birth.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 27, 2024 23:23:59 GMT -5
Agreed. In fact, I tell all my Republican friends that it's a landslide and they don't have to bother to vote. You don't have to either. LOL Well, we'd better vote anyway, you know, just in case. Can't take any chances on the single most unequipped to be president politician alive getting anywhere near that Oval Office. Terrifying thought. Love Sky News. Yes, Kamala is all for freedom after they take away our gas stoves, red meat, private health care, straws, ICE, police, increases our taxes, etc. She's truly demented indeed. And her record as a prosecutor is terrifying. Oh, and she helped to put through Prop 47!!! The entire US will be just like San Francisco. But they're working fervishly to scrub the web of her accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Jul 28, 2024 5:56:54 GMT -5
Agreed. In fact, I tell all my Republican friends that it's a landslide and they don't have to bother to vote. You don't have to either. LOL Well, we'd better vote anyway, you know, just in case. Can't take any chances on the single most unequipped to be president politician alive getting anywhere near that Oval Office. Terrifying thought. Yesterday I saw a video where someone explained why the difference of polls and election was so big in recent election. He thinks that most women tell their Republican Maga husbands, when they are asked for polls ..they would vote Trump..he recalled a female neighbor…why having stress at home..but when in voting box..nearly all of them will vote..Harris..
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Jul 28, 2024 6:00:39 GMT -5
LOL Well, we'd better vote anyway, you know, just in case. Can't take any chances on the single most unequipped to be president politician alive getting anywhere near that Oval Office. Terrifying thought. Yesterday I saw a video where someone explained why the difference of polls and election was so big in recent election. He thinks that most women tell their Republican Maga husbands, when they are asked for polls ..they would vote Trump..he recalled a female neighbor…why having stress at home..but when in voting box..nearly all of them will vote..Harris.. I know there are so many females at Trump rallies..but again…why having stress in family… in the voting box…they are alone…and perhaps on the way to rally..their stupid husband bought them some nice things
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 28, 2024 7:00:46 GMT -5
Yesterday I saw a video where someone explained why the difference of polls and election was so big in recent election. He thinks that most women tell their Republican Maga husbands, when they are asked for polls ..they would vote Trump..he recalled a female neighbor…why having stress at home..but when in voting box..nearly all of them will vote..Harris.. I know there are so many females at Trump rallies..but again…why having stress in family… in the voting box…they are alone…and perhaps on the way to rally..their stupid husband bought them some nice things The problem with Harris is NOT being female or non-white. The problem is that the left is tyrannical and destructive and should NEVER have power. That would be exactly as true for a leftist that was a straight white male. Like that scum Bernie Sanders who admired killers such as Castro for having social programs that spread the poverty around (not to their own version of the privileged, of course).
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 28, 2024 7:45:23 GMT -5
LOL Well, we'd better vote anyway, you know, just in case. Can't take any chances on the single most unequipped to be president politician alive getting anywhere near that Oval Office. Terrifying thought. Yesterday I saw a video where someone explained why the difference of polls and election was so big in recent election. He thinks that most women tell their Republican Maga husbands, when they are asked for polls ..they would vote Trump..he recalled a female neighbor…why having stress at home..but when in voting box..nearly all of them will vote..Harris.. What they tell their husbands wouldn't affect the polls, in the US women don't have to obey their husbands, it's what they tell the pollsters. Like during the 2016 election, people told pollsters they'd vote for Clinton, so people were positive that Clinton would win by a landslide, but they actually voted for Trump.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 28, 2024 7:52:52 GMT -5
When I vote , I ignore those at the polls and vote 🗳️ who I want to win! Remember when on the front page of the paper saying Dewey wins, in reality Truman won !
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jul 28, 2024 9:17:09 GMT -5
LOL Well, we'd better vote anyway, you know, just in case. Can't take any chances on the single most unequipped to be president politician alive getting anywhere near that Oval Office. Terrifying thought. Yesterday I saw a video where someone explained why the difference of polls and election was so big in recent election. He thinks that most women tell their Republican Maga husbands, when they are asked for polls ..they would vote Trump..he recalled a female neighbor…why having stress at home..but when in voting box..nearly all of them will vote..Harris.. It's actually the opposite. The reason Trump has historically way outperformed his polls is that many are afraid to admit to a pollster that they support Trump. TDS scares people. Trump has never lacked massive support. He won in 2016 against all odds against a huge pool of highly qualified candidates, with zero political experience. He was the strong favorite to win in 2020 until covid rampaged the world and the country, and even then he got more votes than any sitting president in U.S. history, 10 million more votes than in 2016, and lost by the tiniest of margins electorally, a statistically insignificant margin...approx 40k votes total. in a handful of swing states. Now, in 2024, he is looking way better in the polls than he did in either 2016 or 2020, and the polls always underestimate his support. Now he has the most unpopular vp, a highly unlikable, radical lefty running against him. He's also had a desperate, fascist democrat party try to take him out endlessly, banana republic style, by trying to jail him with legally laughable garbage cases, all of which have imploded and only served to make Trump more popular, as have the lefts horrific border and economic policies.
|
|