Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
Another, more well known one:
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
I keep on bringing up species because a parasitic relationship is not simply between organisms, but between organisms of different species. This might be an imperfect comparison, but would you also consider the fruit/seed of an apple tree to be in a parasitic relationship with the tree? Fruit (the comparison being here it's already fertilized) is also entirely dependent on nutrients from the tree (the host if you will). Which otherwise, the tree would grow taller if so much energy didn't go into the fruit. But we simply do not use the phrase 'parasitic relationship' to describe this sort of stuff.
But as to pregnancy not being always being consensual, I'll grant you that. Many that get pregnant did not wish to. But that's specific events or conditions where it's not consensual. You couldn't say that all thing being equal, pregnancy is inherently non-consensual. It's necessary for us to propagate. So to label an entire stage as parasitic when it's only certain cases that pregnancies are not wanted, seems to over reach the term.
Whereas parasitic relationships are more like leeches, tapeworms, malarial parasites. It's foreign species not simply a stage in the species own reproductive cycle. I just think it's a far more loaded word than you give it credit for (similar to pro-life calling fetuses babies). Parasite makes the pregnancy sound like you were implanted by a face hugger or something.
On September 04 2012 10:57 KwarK wrote: It is currently against the law to perform a late term abortion (after 24 weeks I believe) and I don't know of any Democrat plans to push that back.
Is this really the law? My understanding was that according to the supreme court a woman's privacy rights mean that she can terminate her pregnancy any time. But I stand to be corrected.
On September 04 2012 10:57 KwarK wrote: It is currently against the law to perform a late term abortion (after 24 weeks I believe) and I don't know of any Democrat plans to push that back.
Is this really the law? My understanding was that according to the supreme court a woman's privacy rights mean that she can terminate her pregnancy any time. But I stand to be corrected.
If the fetus is viable past 22-24 weeks you pretty much can't get an abortion unless some life/health issue comes up.
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
I think the most depressing part about all of these lies, is how few people care about it. It almost seems as if it's just natural for politicians to lie, which I personally think is completely unacceptable. When I watched the GOP convention, and there were some very blatant lies, I wondered why we don't have some system that protects against that. At the end of the day, some people in America don't know that some of those things were lies. Maybe that has a small influence on their vote, how is it a fair campaign if there is no punishment for intentionally lying to manipulate people's votes?
On September 04 2012 07:52 KwarK wrote: [quote] Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
No, what you are describing are dependents. You have social obligations to provide for them but not biological ones. It's very different from when nutrients are being absorbed directly out of the mother's body.
On September 04 2012 07:52 KwarK wrote: [quote] Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
Agreeing with KwarK, more or less. Young children could certainly be provided with alternatives for survival -- that's no more of a parasitic example than anyone else needing nutrition. (More on that in a second, though)
The bacteria example is...strange. The mother's body doesn't actually need the baby inside to keep it alive, unless you want to go for this meta- kind of 'we (collective) need pregnancies so that we can survive as a species' angle. As far as I understand it, pregnancy actually seems to have almost exclusively detrimental effects on the mother's body. Then again, I don't understand it very well, so that goes with a grain of salt, as usual.
The elderly and the sick, as he said, are cared for because society says we should care for them, and that we should be cared for when we become old or sick ourselves.
And, on the grander scale example, sure we are. Real "Mister Anderson" moment there, but it seems like a fair comparison. Did you mean to dismiss the notion that humans are, effectively, parasites, as far as the health of the planet is concerned?
For me, at least, KwarK's preference for "parasitic" rather than "dependent" seems justified. As he's said, parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly.
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
It doesn't matter, really. People will hear what they want to hear, and dismiss the rest, reliably. If you point out that Romney/Ryan lies a lot, the counter is that all politicians lie a lot. Point out specific things that Romney/Ryan have lied (or are lying) about, the counter is a list of things that Obama lied about, regardless of whether or not you're actually a supporter. Produce a list, or inquire as to why Romney/Ryan would lie about insignificant things, you're trying to distract people from what really matters.
On September 04 2012 10:57 KwarK wrote: As for partial birth, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the medical reasons for favouring that method over others but it was never a significant part of abortions anyway, making up a tiny fraction (less than 1/500) of total abortions. If it's medically justifiable (over other methods) for the health of the mother and complies with all the other laws (cutoff etc) then I see no problem with it. Likewise, if it'd be wrong because it was after the cutoff then you don't need a explicit barring of partial birth abortion under those conditions, it's already covered. I'm really not sure what the issue is. Either it's okay to remove a foetus before 24 weeks or it's not, complaining about how exactly the remains are removed from the womb is a strange argument to get into.
Kwark, (and anyone else who might be interested)
The intact D&X abortion procedure (sometimes referred to as "partial birth" abortion largely to evoke some sort of emotional response to increase support for the banning of the procedure) is medically justifiable, at least as much as any other abortion would be. It's actually pretty important, too.
Basically, a woman's body changes throughout pregnancy to prepare her to give birth. In the 9th month of pregnancy, the body has more or less fully adjusted to the requirements for giving birth, and thus can *usually* safely deliver an intact baby head. Childbirth can, of course, still be dangerous for many mothers.
The reason for D&X is that most "late-term" abortions happen before the 24th week. The reason why it's so uncommon is simply that most abortions happen significantly earlier. In countries where abortion is more readily available (without parental consent, or stringent medical documentation, for example), it's quite rare. At the point of 24 weeks, it's simply unsafe for a woman to deliver an intact fetus head, which is why doctors must compress the fetus' head, even if it's already dead, because refraining from doing so is medically irresponsible, as it unnecessarily increases a mother's chance of being injured. Banning the practice only serves to make abortions even more dangerous than they already are.
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
Did you read through these? I saw "The President lost our AAA rating" followed by "Nu-uh it was GOP congress!" something like 3 or 4 times just randomly clicking on 5 links. Most of these are really weak and tenuous and come down to interpretation or semantics. Here's an example:
"At an event in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, Romney said Obama falsely claimed four years ago that 'he was going to help create more jobs.' "
Obama has helped create more jobs -- over 4.4 million of them in the private sector.
Well of course some job creation has happened in the past 4 years, but more has a the meaning of "in greater quantity," which is much more likely what Romney meant, more than he has created.
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
It doesn't matter, really. People will hear what they want to hear, and dismiss the rest, reliably. If you point out that Romney/Ryan lies a lot, the counter is that all politicians lie a lot. Point out specific things that Romney/Ryan have lied (or are lying) about, the counter is a list of things that Obama lied about, regardless of whether or not you're actually a supporter. Produce a list, or inquire as to why Romney/Ryan would lie about insignificant things, you're trying to distract people from what really matters.
Which is not the truth, apparently.
Did you look through these? Most of them that I've seen are at worst exaggerations on Romney's part. The high level of scrutiny available in this election is artificially inflating the "lie count" of both candidates by making these exaggerations more easily check-able. Yeah, it sucks that our leaders do that, but they're human just like us. I'd be a liar if I said that I didn't stretch the truth to make myself look better to others from time to time.
Also, all politicians lie a lot; especially President Obama. Stop trying to distract from what really matters!
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
Did you read through these? I saw "The President lost our AAA rating" followed by "Nu-uh it was GOP congress!" something like 3 or 4 times just randomly clicking on 5 links. Most of these are really weak and tenuous and come down to interpretation or semantics. Here's an example:
"At an event in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, Romney said Obama falsely claimed four years ago that 'he was going to help create more jobs.' "
Obama has helped create more jobs -- over 4.4 million of them in the private sector.
Well of course some job creation has happened in the past 4 years, but more has a the meaning of "in greater quantity," which is much more likely what Romney meant, more than he has created.
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
I really just wanted to post that blog snippet to get a broader reaction on the subject. How do you guys feel about the seemingly dishonest nature of the entire Romney campaign? We got these almost directly from Romney and we have another pile from Paul Ryan. He even lied about his marathon results. Each of these lies are harmless enough, but why aren't we talking about the ridiculous number of them being told?
It doesn't matter, really. People will hear what they want to hear, and dismiss the rest, reliably. If you point out that Romney/Ryan lies a lot, the counter is that all politicians lie a lot. Point out specific things that Romney/Ryan have lied (or are lying) about, the counter is a list of things that Obama lied about, regardless of whether or not you're actually a supporter. Produce a list, or inquire as to why Romney/Ryan would lie about insignificant things, you're trying to distract people from what really matters.
Which is not the truth, apparently.
Did you look through these? Most of them that I've seen are at worst exaggerations on Romney's part. The high level of scrutiny available in this election is artificially inflating the "lie count" of both candidates by making these exaggerations more easily check-able. Yeah, it sucks that our leaders do that, but they're human just like us. I'd be a liar if I said that I didn't stretch the truth to make myself look better to others from time to time.
Also, all politicians lie a lot; especially President Obama. Stop trying to distract from what really matters!
You must be very fortunate to only find things on the internet that you agree with, if all you stumbled across were exaggerations and semantics. Try this page next.
I rewrote this post about five times, but...by going through page after page as I wrote, all I could come up with is that you didn't read these yourself, bud. I even started picking through them at random to see whether "most" could actually apply, but I stopped. For one, I realized that that was actually crazy, and would prove nothing. (Proved interesting, though.) Then, I realized that within just a few posts I'd already read a lot more than you.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
No, what you are describing are dependents. You have social obligations to provide for them but not biological ones. It's very different from when nutrients are being absorbed directly out of the mother's body.
Why does the social / biological distinction matter? If you must provide care, even to your own detriment, the difference seems more than a bit pedantic.
On September 04 2012 08:10 KwarK wrote: [quote] I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
No, what you are describing are dependents. You have social obligations to provide for them but not biological ones. It's very different from when nutrients are being absorbed directly out of the mother's body.
Why does the social / biological distinction matter? If you must provide care, even to your own detriment, the difference seems more than a bit pedantic.
Is this a serious question, or are you being argumentative for the sake of it?
On September 04 2012 08:10 KwarK wrote: [quote] I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
No, what you are describing are dependents. You have social obligations to provide for them but not biological ones. It's very different from when nutrients are being absorbed directly out of the mother's body.
Why does the social / biological distinction matter? If you must provide care, even to your own detriment, the difference seems more than a bit pedantic.
Bassically If a borned child isn't wanted by the mother, the mother can put it up for adoption or give it to someone. If the mother doesn't want a feotus she needs to kill it in order to get rid of it. One is dependant on the nurturing nature of others and the other is taking ressources (dependant) from only one possible person (the pregnant woman).
If they consent (to the taking of ressources) the baby is born, if they don't they abort. And If I've followed correctly abortion is illegal if the feotus can be taken care by people other then the mother (thus is considered can be taken care of by other people that will view the baby as a dependant to them due to advances in medical technologie even if the full pregnancy cycle isn't complete).
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
No, what you are describing are dependents. You have social obligations to provide for them but not biological ones. It's very different from when nutrients are being absorbed directly out of the mother's body.
Why does the social / biological distinction matter? If you must provide care, even to your own detriment, the difference seems more than a bit pedantic.
Is this a serious question, or are you being argumentative for the sake of it?
Serious. You can't use inflammatory language without having a really awesome justification for it.
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
No, what you are describing are dependents. You have social obligations to provide for them but not biological ones. It's very different from when nutrients are being absorbed directly out of the mother's body.
Why does the social / biological distinction matter? If you must provide care, even to your own detriment, the difference seems more than a bit pedantic.
Bassically If a borned child isn't wanted by the mother, the mother can put it up for adoption or give it to someone. If the mother doesn't want a feotus she needs to kill it in order to get rid of it. One is dependant on the nurturing nature of others and the other is taking ressources (dependant) from only one possible person (the pregnant woman).
If they consent (to the taking of ressources) the baby is born, if they don't they abort. And If I've followed correctly abortion is illegal if the feotus can be taken care by people other then the mother (thus is considered can be taken care of by other people that will view the baby as a dependant to them due to advances in medical technologie even if the full pregnancy cycle isn't complete).
That's the difference.
So the difference is that the already born child can be more easily and quickly transferred from the custody and care of the mother to the custody and care of another.
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
On September 04 2012 08:41 KwarK wrote: [quote] Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
No, what you are describing are dependents. You have social obligations to provide for them but not biological ones. It's very different from when nutrients are being absorbed directly out of the mother's body.
Why does the social / biological distinction matter? If you must provide care, even to your own detriment, the difference seems more than a bit pedantic.
Bassically If a borned child isn't wanted by the mother, the mother can put it up for adoption or give it to someone. If the mother doesn't want a feotus she needs to kill it in order to get rid of it. One is dependant on the nurturing nature of others and the other is taking ressources (dependant) from only one possible person (the pregnant woman).
If they consent (to the taking of ressources) the baby is born, if they don't they abort. And If I've followed correctly abortion is illegal if the feotus can be taken care by people other then the mother (thus is considered can be taken care of by other people that will view the baby as a dependant to them due to advances in medical technologie even if the full pregnancy cycle isn't complete).
That's the difference.
So the difference is that the already born child can be more easily and quickly transferred from the custody and care of the mother to the custody and care of another.
Yes (from my interpretation of the arguments presented) it could be argued, that if you can transfer responsibility of the nutrient giving phase of the feotus you can no longer abort and if you can't, you can abort.
Which would be an interesting position, one where the goal post can be moved with advances in medical technologie, but early pregnancy detection and early abortion should make it easy to make a decision before that time comes.
On September 04 2012 09:08 Falling wrote: [quote] For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
Is a young child that relies on his/her mother's milk for survival a "parasite" as well?
What about full grown adults who rely on the bacteria inside their bodies for survival? Not even mother's milk would be fully digestible without them.
What of the elderly and sick, many would die without outside assistance, are they "parasites" as well?
Or on a grader scale, are we all not parasites of mother Earth?
No, what you are describing are dependents. You have social obligations to provide for them but not biological ones. It's very different from when nutrients are being absorbed directly out of the mother's body.
Why does the social / biological distinction matter? If you must provide care, even to your own detriment, the difference seems more than a bit pedantic.
Bassically If a borned child isn't wanted by the mother, the mother can put it up for adoption or give it to someone. If the mother doesn't want a feotus she needs to kill it in order to get rid of it. One is dependant on the nurturing nature of others and the other is taking ressources (dependant) from only one possible person (the pregnant woman).
If they consent (to the taking of ressources) the baby is born, if they don't they abort. And If I've followed correctly abortion is illegal if the feotus can be taken care by people other then the mother (thus is considered can be taken care of by other people that will view the baby as a dependant to them due to advances in medical technologie even if the full pregnancy cycle isn't complete).
That's the difference.
So the difference is that the already born child can be more easily and quickly transferred from the custody and care of the mother to the custody and care of another.
Yes (from my interpretation of the arguments presented) it could be argued, that if you can transfer responsibility of the nutrient giving phase of the feotus you can no longer abort and if you can't, you can abort.
Which would be an interesting position, one where the goal post can be moved with advances in medical technologie, but early pregnancy detection and early abortion should make it easy to make a decision before that time comes.
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
Notwithstanding the arbitrariness of a start of a presidential term, voters honestly believe that things are worse now then when the country was in a recession, when there were bank runs and unemployment was moving from around 6% to eventually around 10%, when the financial sector was on the verge of collapse?
EPT
, well said! 
