[Kaiserschmarrn]

Am I being trolled here?

Just in case, here it is again:

1. An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

[Godstud]

Again, from the Supreme Court of Canada:
"Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."

[B0ycey]

I do not understand what is so funny. You are the one who is calling unborn children as parasites. Were you a parasite at some point then?

I won't use the term parasite Albert just that it technically is - in the sense it depends on its mother. But DNA is a funny argument to distingish between species as DNA is different between every single living organism regardless of the group they are assigned to. Only human definitions within a social contract truely determines what is.

[Albert]

Again, from the Supreme Court of Canada:
"Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."

Why is she having sex if she does not want to have a responsibility of having a child?

Must I remind you, all of us here at some point were just a "cell".

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Reasonable people can disagree with the Supreme Court of Canada and many do, including law makers and supreme courts in other countries.

I won't use the term parasite Albert just that it technically is - in the sense it depends on its mother. But DNA is a funny argument to distingish between species as DNA is different between every single living organism regardless of the group they are assigned to. Only human definitions within a social contract truely determines what is.

Again, please note the definition of parasite which you clearly haven't read properly.

The genes that are unique to us are responsible for the traits that make us human as opposed to, say, mice. It's not a funny argument at all, it's a scientific one.

[B0ycey]

Again, please note the definition of parasite which you clearly haven't read properly.

To keep you happy.

"A Person who habitially relies on others and gives nothing in return"

The human genes that are unique to us are responsible for the traits that make us human as opposed to, say, mice. It's not a funny argument at all, it's a scientific one.

It is funny you say that. I remember Potemkin using the Science argument to say we are all "Fish". So what are we exactly according to science? Everything apparently.

We are all organisms with DNA. Only "Human" definitions determines what we are within the realms of our society. To nature we just are.

[Godstud]

Why is she having sex if she does not want to have a responsibility of having a child?

I guess a person who has never had sex might ask such a question. You are kidding, right?

Reasonable people can disagree with the Supreme Court of Canada and many do, including law makers and supreme courts in other countries.

They are not reasonable people, if they're going to disagree with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Stay out of Canada if you don't like it.

Again, bravo to Ireland!

[Kaiserschmarrn]

To keep you happy.

"A Person who habitially relies on others and gives nothing in return"

All children, born and unborn, are parasites by that definition, but we both know that no reasonable person would refer to born kids as parasites, not even with the qualifier "technically". Further, "technically" an embryo is not a person and hence cannot be a parasite.

It is funny you say that. I remember Potemkin using the Science argument to say we are all "Fish". So what are we exactly according to science? Everything apparently.

We are all organisms with DNA. Only "Human" definitions determines what we are within the realms of our society. To nature we just are.

Please spare me your pseudo-philosophical musings.

Again, bravo to Ireland!

Again, you are confused. Ireland has not adopted the Canadian approach and almost certainly won't.

[Godstud]

Again, you are confused. Ireland has not adopted the Canadian approach and almost certainly won't.

It is still 100 times better than what it was, which was barbaric.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Your feeling that it was "barbaric" is irrelevant.

[Godstud]

I know that, but at the same time, less harm will be done because of this.

[Albert]

It is still 100 times better than what it was, which was barbaric.

This is incredible.

[Godstud]

Women being harmed because of thoughtless laws is incredible? I agree. That people like you care nothing for women isn't surprising, @Albert. Weren't you recently supporting MGTOW?

[B0ycey]

Please spare me your pseudo-philosophical musings.

Love the rebuttal.

And will do. But that is how society functions btw. Not with scientific musings but by defined laws.

[Albert]

Love the rebuttal.

And will do. But that is how society functions btw. Not with scientific musings but by defined laws.

Well your argument of Potemkin said, is not exactly, well you know.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Love the rebuttal. .

Sorry to say, but that's what it was.

I'm not sure what Potemkin was referring to, but I'm fairly certain that he knows that human DNA can be used to distinguish us from other organisms, including fish. This is not a matter of opinion.

[B0ycey]

Well your argument of Potemkin said, is not exactly, well you know.

It was what he said, not what I said. But using a scientific argument there is a contradiction. Kaiser says DNA distingishes species from one another and Pote argues that it groups species to within its lineage. But a definition determined by society is how the law works so science is irrelevant whatever scientific method you accept actually. So what does it matter I guess.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Kaiser says DNA distingishes species from one another and Pote argues that it groups species to within its lineage.

You can use DNA for all kinds of groupings.

Recently some people have tested companies that offer DNA analysis to humans by sending them DNA from their dogs. This was in the news because, while most of these companies detected that the sample wasn't human and replied accordingly, at least one of them was sloppy and send back the analysis. It was rightly called out on it, because it should have been able to distinguish a non-human sample.

[snapdragon]

You'll go to prison if you don't nurture and care for your child. I know it's horribly unfair that the law requires you to use your body for this, but that's how it is.

The law in no way forces either parents to use their body to nurture their child.

Not in any way.

I have had four children and was never once obliged to use my body to nurture them by law.

I chose to breastfeed the for three months of their lives. It was a completely free choice made by me and no one else.

Love the phrase "human entity". The ,mental gymnastics you guys feel are necessary to avoid calling a human being what it is are hilarious.

It isn't semantics. The term human being may have a meaning in law that human entity doesn't.

Human being can sometimes refer to born people, who are sometimes also known as natural persons.

The pregnant woman is certainly a human being. Whether the foetus or embryo inside her uterus is one depends on who you ask.

In the same way, some people call pregnant women mothers, but, strictly speaking, they're not.

I don't do it, ever, as it can lead to some very stupid and pointless arguments.

[B0ycey]

You can use DNA for all kinds of groupings.

Recently some people have tested companies that offer DNA analysis to humans by sending them DNA from their dogs. This was in the news because, while most of these companies detected that the sample wasn't human and replied accordingly, at least one of them was sloppy and send back the analysis. It was rightly called out on it, because it should have been able to distinguish a non-human sample.

Of course. You can use DNA to distingush between species. My originally point was the DNA is unique so cannot be used in law actually. The fact there appears to be a contradiction just concludes that agreed social definitions is a better way to distingish between organisms in society.