We aren't seriously considering the human fetus a form of a invasive species are we? Because you know there's another word for a species that lives off another in terms of a mutal advancement.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->sym·bi·ont /ˈsɪmbiˌɒnt, -baɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sim-bee-ont, -bahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun Biology. an organism living in a state of symbiosis. Also, sym·bi·ote /ˈsɪmbiˌoʊt, -baɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sim-bee-oht, -bahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
[Origin: 1885–90; < Gk symbiont- (s. of symbin), prp. of symbioûn to live together; see symbiosis, onto-]
What I mean by mutal advancement I mean genetic improvement along the reproductive line. With each new generation the species gets stronger and smarter. Therefore you cannot possibly classify a fetus as a parasetic organism...
No Revlic, no. We weren't serious about that. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Mandatory sterilisations, I'm afraid, are a very shortsighted approach. One of the biggest benefits of legal abortion is that you get people to give up those clotheshangers. Forcing people to get sterilised in order to have an abortion will only force them BACK to the clotheshangers, thus missing one of the more important points of legal abortion. In short, not viable.
While it isn't a parasitic organism, it sure as hell isn't symbiotic either, when it could result in the death of either one or both, that isn't symbiotic.
<!--quoteo(post=1590914:date=Dec 21 2006, 02:11 PM:name=Lanfear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lanfear @ Dec 21 2006, 02:11 PM) [snapback]1590914[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> While it isn't a parasitic organism, it sure as hell isn't symbiotic either, when it could result in the death of either one or both, that isn't symbiotic.
Now matter how flowery you word it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically it is. Since if we stopped having them, we would cease as a species. Symbiotic relationships can also be hazardous for both parties as well. But chances of survival improve with each. This is why humans don't do asymmetrical cloning. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
So basically it's mutually benefiting that we have kids. I mean the world needs more people to work at McDonald's and all.
But I do see the need for abortions, especially when the woman's life is in danger.
<!--quoteo(post=1590904:date=Dec 21 2006, 12:45 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 21 2006, 12:45 PM) [snapback]1590904[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> No Revlic, no. We weren't serious about that. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Mandatory sterilisations, I'm afraid, are a very shortsighted approach. One of the biggest benefits of legal abortion is that you get people to give up those clotheshangers. Forcing people to get sterilised in order to have an abortion will only force them BACK to the clotheshangers, thus missing one of the more important points of legal abortion. In short, not viable. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was some guy/chick (lots of drinking, I can't remember) who had the idea of giving girls a chance to get a IUD at a young age free of charge from the government.
<!--quoteo(post=1591010:date=Dec 21 2006, 02:33 PM:name=Revlic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Revlic @ Dec 21 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1591010[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But I do see the need for abortions, especially when the woman's life is in danger. There was some guy/chick (lots of drinking, I can't remember) who had the idea of giving girls a chance to get a IUD at a young age free of charge from the government.
Which makes a lot of sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are not many doctors that are willing to put a IUD into a young woman. Most doctors, not all, have this "you must have children" syndrome.
<!--quoteo(post=1591042:date=Dec 21 2006, 10:27 PM:name=Lanfear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lanfear @ Dec 21 2006, 10:27 PM) [snapback]1591042[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There are not many doctors that are willing to put a IUD into a young woman. Most doctors, not all, have this "you must have children" syndrome. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a fan of adoption, after seeing my aunt adopt a child I can see why people do it.
You don't need to have children to have happy life. But everyone is stuck on the idea of Ozzy and Harriet nuclear family bullish.
If I was a doctor, I would be more then glad that a girl would do something like that, especially with those crazy experimental college years.
<!--quoteo(post=1591042:date=Dec 21 2006, 11:27 PM:name=Lanfear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lanfear @ Dec 21 2006, 11:27 PM) [snapback]1591042[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There are not many doctors that are willing to put a IUD into a young woman. Most doctors, not all, have this "you must have children" syndrome. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I was a woman I could have ENDLESS fun arguing with those. Particularly, I'd make sure to slap them in the face with the "it's 100% reversible" argument every five minutes. I kinda wish I was a woman now. You get to have all the fun. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1591106:date=Dec 22 2006, 01:24 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 22 2006, 01:24 AM) [snapback]1591106[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If I was a woman I could have ENDLESS fun arguing with those. Particularly, I'd make sure to slap them in the face with the "it's 100% reversible" argument every five minutes. I kinda wish I was a woman now. You get to have all the fun. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I think that's pretty true. You ever meet a nice looking girl who didn't know how to have fun?
<!--quoteo(post=1591113:date=Dec 22 2006, 01:41 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 22 2006, 01:41 AM) [snapback]1591113[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I did, actually, but she had mental problems. Or so I was told a few years later. She's better now though. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
making contraceptives more easily available and replacing the "lol [male-specific body part]" and "this is what a condom looks like" classes in public schools with something almost useful would help
<!--quoteo(post=1592294:date=Dec 26 2006, 11:16 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Dec 26 2006, 11:16 AM) [snapback]1592294[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> making contraceptives more easily available and replacing the "lol [male-specific body part]" and "this is what a condom looks like" classes in public schools with something almost useful would help <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Although thats the interesting part where the religious discussion shows what it's more about. The Religious Right doesn't like contraception either.
So it makes you consider their motivations.
They are more preoccupied with increasing the Church's influence than morals. More Reglious people having babies, means more people on their side.
At the same time, it gives them something to join together and demonize. And we all know nothing brings unrelated people together easier than a common enemy.
<!--quoteo(post=1593303:date=Dec 30 2006, 08:44 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Dec 30 2006, 08:44 PM) [snapback]1593303[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> so, the obivous chain of logic here is:
increase availability of contraceptives --> fewer unwanted kids --> fewer abortions and illegitimate children. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Better.
Comments
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->sym·bi·ont /ˈsɪmbiˌɒnt, -baɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sim-bee-ont, -bahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Biology.
an organism living in a state of symbiosis.
Also, sym·bi·ote /ˈsɪmbiˌoʊt, -baɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sim-bee-oht, -bahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
[Origin: 1885–90; < Gk symbiont- (s. of symbin), prp. of symbioûn to live together; see symbiosis, onto-]
—Related forms
sym·bi·on·tic /ˌsɪmbiˈɒntɪk, -baɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sim-bee-on-tik, -bahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
sym·bi·ont (sĭm'bē-ŏnt', -bī-) Pronunciation Key
n. An organism in a symbiotic relationship. Also called symbiote.
[Greek sumbiōn, sumbiount-, present participle of sumbioun, to live together; see symbiosis.]
sym'bi·on'tic adj.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
sym·bi·ote (sĭm'bē-ōt', -bī-) Pronunciation Key
n. See symbiont.
[French, from Greek sumbiōtēs, companion, from sumbioun, to live together; see symbiosis.]
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source
symbiont (sĭm'bē-ŏnt', -bī-) or symbiote (sĭm'bē-ŏnt', -bī-) Pronunciation Key
An organism in a symbiotic relationship. In cases in which a distinction is made between two interacting organisms, the symbiont is the smaller of the two and is always a beneficiary in the relationship, while the larger organism is the host and may or may not derive a benefit. See also host, parasite.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I mean by mutal advancement I mean genetic improvement along the reproductive line. With each new generation the species gets stronger and smarter. Therefore you cannot possibly classify a fetus as a parasetic organism...
Unless it goes to art school.
Mandatory sterilisations, I'm afraid, are a very shortsighted approach. One of the biggest benefits of legal abortion is that you get people to give up those clotheshangers. Forcing people to get sterilised in order to have an abortion will only force them BACK to the clotheshangers, thus missing one of the more important points of legal abortion.
In short, not viable.
Now matter how flowery you word it.
While it isn't a parasitic organism, it sure as hell isn't symbiotic either, when it could result in the death of either one or both, that isn't symbiotic.
Now matter how flowery you word it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically it is. Since if we stopped having them, we would cease as a species. Symbiotic relationships can also be hazardous for both parties as well. But chances of survival improve with each. This is why humans don't do asymmetrical cloning. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
So basically it's mutually benefiting that we have kids. I mean the world needs more people to work at McDonald's and all.
But I do see the need for abortions, especially when the woman's life is in danger.
<!--quoteo(post=1590904:date=Dec 21 2006, 12:45 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 21 2006, 12:45 PM) [snapback]1590904[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
No Revlic, no. We weren't serious about that. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Mandatory sterilisations, I'm afraid, are a very shortsighted approach. One of the biggest benefits of legal abortion is that you get people to give up those clotheshangers. Forcing people to get sterilised in order to have an abortion will only force them BACK to the clotheshangers, thus missing one of the more important points of legal abortion.
In short, not viable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was some guy/chick (lots of drinking, I can't remember) who had the idea of giving girls a chance to get a IUD at a young age free of charge from the government.
Which makes a lot of sense.
But I do see the need for abortions, especially when the woman's life is in danger.
There was some guy/chick (lots of drinking, I can't remember) who had the idea of giving girls a chance to get a IUD at a young age free of charge from the government.
Which makes a lot of sense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are not many doctors that are willing to put a IUD into a young woman. Most doctors, not all, have this "you must have children" syndrome.
There are not many doctors that are willing to put a IUD into a young woman. Most doctors, not all, have this "you must have children" syndrome.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a fan of adoption, after seeing my aunt adopt a child I can see why people do it.
You don't need to have children to have happy life. But everyone is stuck on the idea of Ozzy and Harriet nuclear family bullish.
If I was a doctor, I would be more then glad that a girl would do something like that, especially with those crazy experimental college years.
/I spent mine in a computer lab.
//whoo!
There are not many doctors that are willing to put a IUD into a young woman. Most doctors, not all, have this "you must have children" syndrome.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I was a woman I could have ENDLESS fun arguing with those. Particularly, I'd make sure to slap them in the face with the "it's 100% reversible" argument every five minutes. I kinda wish I was a woman now. You get to have all the fun. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
If I was a woman I could have ENDLESS fun arguing with those. Particularly, I'd make sure to slap them in the face with the "it's 100% reversible" argument every five minutes. I kinda wish I was a woman now. You get to have all the fun. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I think that's pretty true. You ever meet a nice looking girl who didn't know how to have fun?
I did, actually, but she had mental problems. Or so I was told a few years later. She's better now though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those don't really count.
Also, I declare this thread thoroughly derailed. Here's an open invitation to everyone to see if we can pull it back on track somehow.
making contraceptives more easily available and replacing the "lol [male-specific body part]" and "this is what a condom looks like" classes in public schools with something almost useful would help
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although thats the interesting part where the religious discussion shows what it's more about.
The Religious Right doesn't like contraception either.
So it makes you consider their motivations.
They are more preoccupied with increasing the Church's influence than morals.
More Reglious people having babies, means more people on their side.
At the same time, it gives them something to join together and demonize.
And we all know nothing brings unrelated people together easier than a common enemy.
get rid of the church --> increase availability of contraceptives --> fewer unwanted kids --> fewer abortions and illegitimate children.
so, the obivous chain of logic here is:
increase availability of contraceptives --> fewer unwanted kids --> fewer abortions and illegitimate children.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Better.
While not as large an issue in the US,
Leave it to any patriarcal religion to demand the suppression of women.