Atheists, do you agree with these definitions?

[Yahchristian]

A fetus is a parasite.

What part of calling a baby a "parasite" is a lie? It is definitionally correct.

fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Atheists, do you agree with these definitions?

If you do, here are my followup questions...

1) Are a woman and her unborn child two separate organisms?
2) Are a woman and her unborn child the same species?
3) Is the woman's unborn child part of the woman's body rather than attached to the woman's body?

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Atheists, do you agree with these definitions?

If you do, here are my followup questions...

1) Are a woman and her unborn child two separate organisms?
2) Are a woman and her unborn child the same species?
3) Is the woman's unborn child part of the woman's body rather than attached to the woman's body?

This has nothing to do with belief in a god or gods. So atheists will have all kinds of positions on abortion - some pro-life, some-pro-choice. I do not think you'll find a unified atheist position on abortion.

I personally do not have a position on abortion - I can see the merit in both sides so I am still thinking about it.

However, if God is real and he is omnipotent then God clearly has no issue with abortion. Omnipotent and omniscient God watches millions upon millions of the unborn be killed and God does nothing. He could save every single one but instead God just watches it happen. So he is either OK with abortion or he does not have the power to stop liberal, pro-choice doctors.

But God clearly cannot be against abortion or he'd stop it, right? Why would God hate abortion, have the power to save the children, and do nothing? That's kinda evil, right?

Either way the Christian God does nothing to stop the killing of the unborn. So maybe you should take this up with Him

 

[Whateverman]

fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Atheists, do you agree with these definitions?

From a technical aspect, yes, I agree with both.

If you do, here are my followup questions...

1) Are a woman and her unborn child two separate organisms?
2) Are a woman and her unborn child the same species?
3) Is the woman's unborn child part of the woman's body rather than attached to the woman's body?

1) It's a continuum. Early into the gestation cycle, they're both part of the same organism, but as that cycle progresses, they separate. Interestingly, "a woman" contains hundreds of millions of organisms, as does every human being - so the question of how separate these various entities are is a complex one.

2) Yes

3) Same answer as #1. Early-on, the fetus is part of a woman's body, but as the date of birth gets closer it detaches itself. It never fully separates, but with the exception of the umbilical cord, it comes close.

 

[Mr Laurier]

fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Atheists, do you agree with these definitions?

If you do, here are my followup questions...

1) Are a woman and her unborn child two separate organisms?
2) Are a woman and her unborn child the same species?
3) Is the woman's unborn child part of the woman's body rather than attached to the woman's body?

I agree personally as a human being. Whether or not I am an atheist, does not change reality.


1,Yes
2,Yes.
3, yes/no.

 

[Temujin]

fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Atheists, do you agree with these definitions?

If you do, here are my followup questions...

1) Are a woman and her unborn child two separate organisms?
2) Are a woman and her unborn child the same species?
3) Is the woman's unborn child part of the woman's body rather than attached to the woman's body?

Firstly, like other respondents, I am not referencing my non-belief in God in formulating my replies.
Yes, I agree the definition of foetus.
No. I do not agree the definition of parasite. I would prefer the Merriam-Webster definition:
1 : a living thing (as a flea, worm, or fungus) that lives in or on another living thing and gets food and sometimes shelter from it and usually causes harm to it.
2 : a person who lives at the expense of another. parasite. noun.

As the foetus is not a person, definition 1 is the relevant one.

Yes.
Yes
No.

 

[Yahchristian]

This has nothing to do with belief in a god or gods. So atheists will have all kinds of positions on abortion - some pro-life, some-pro-choice. I do not think you'll find a unified atheist position on abortion.

I personally do not have a position on abortion - I can see the merit in both sides so I am still thinking about it.

Ummm, I did not mention abortion. I made no mention of the child not being born.

I asked...

Do you agree with these definitions?

fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

If you do, here are my followup questions...

1) Are a woman and her unborn child two separate organisms?
2) Are a woman and her unborn child the same species?
3) Is the woman's unborn child part of the woman's body rather than attached to the woman's body?

I will assume you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions until you post your answers.

 

[Yahchristian]

From a technical aspect, yes, I agree with both.

I agree personally as a human being. Whether or not I am an atheist, does not change reality.

Firstly, like other respondents, I am not referencing my non-belief in God in formulating my replies.
Yes, I agree the definition of foetus.
No. I do not agree the definition of parasite. I would prefer the Merriam-Webster definition:
1 : a living thing (as a flea, worm, or fungus) that lives in or on another living thing and gets food and sometimes shelter from it and usually causes harm to it.
2 : a person who lives at the expense of another. parasite. noun.

As the foetus is not a person, definition 1 is the relevant one.

Yes.
Yes
No.

@Whateverman @Mr Laurier @Temujin, based on the definitions you agree with...

Do you agree with @Electric Skeptic that a fetus is a parasite?

I do not.

 

[Temujin]

@Whateverman @Mr Laurier @Temujin, based on the definitions you agree with...

Do you agree with @Electric Skeptic that a fetus is a parasite?

I do not.

Yes.

 

[Yahchristian]

As the foetus is not a person, definition 1 is the relevant one.

Since you agree that a fetus refers to a baby right up until it is born...

What is your definition of "person" such that a woman's baby when she is entering the delivery room is NOT a person?

Since I am not sure you will agree with these definitions...
Google: a human being regarded as an individual.
Merriam-Webster: HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL


If you DO happen to agree with one of those definitions...

Are conjoined twins one person or two?

I say two.

 

[The Pixie]

Ummm, I did not mention abortion. I made no mention of the child not being born.

Can you honestly say this is NOT about abortion?

Or are you just annoyed so many people caught you?

 

[Temujin]

Since you agree that a fetus refers to a baby right up until it is born...

What is your definition of "person" such that a woman's baby when she is entering the delivery room is NOT a person?

Since I am not sure you will agree with these definitions...
Google: a human being regarded as an individual.
Merriam-Webster: HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL

A person for me is an independent and self-aware human being, the foetus being neither.

 

[Yahchristian]

Yes.

You gave this as part of your definition of parasite...

2 : a person who lives at the expense of another. parasite. noun.

So just to clarify...

Is a one month old baby a parasite?

They would be "a person who lives at the expense of another". Correct?

Or did you not intend to include that as part of your definition of parasite.

 

[Whateverman]

@Whateverman @Mr Laurier @Temujin, based on the definitions you agree with...

Do you agree with @Electric Skeptic that a fetus is a parasite?

I do not.

From a technical aspect, yes.

I think the fetus is more than a parasite, in that it has the potential to become a real living human being. However, at some early stage in its gestation, "parasite" clearly describes it better than "real living human being"

 

[Temujin]

You gave this as part of your definition of parasite...

2 : a person who lives at the expense of another. parasite. noun.

So just to clarify...

Is a one month old baby a parasite?

They would be "a person who lives at the expense of another". Correct?

Or did you not intend to include that as part of your definition of parasite.

Technically, yes it is a parasite in this second sense although this is usually used as a term of abuse rather than a simple description. "Parasite" has strong negative connotations, though from a biological point of view they are very well-adapted and successful.

Arguably he or she remains a parasite until they leave home and start earning. Only a very disgruntled parent would actually consider their child to be a parasite, or indeed their foetus as a parasite, in the negative sense.

 

[Yahchristian]

A person for me is an independent and self-aware human being, the foetus being neither.

So just to be clear...

Are you saying...
A) a baby right before it is born is NOT a human being.
B) a baby right before it is born IS a human being but not an independent or self-aware human being.

 

[Temujin]

So just to be clear...

Are you saying...
A) a baby right before it is born is NOT a human being.
B) a baby right before it is born IS a human being but not an independent or self-aware human being.

There is no such thing as a baby before it is born.
B is correct otherwise, in my opinion. Other opinions are available, some of which will be held by atheists.

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

Ummm, I did not mention abortion. I made no mention of the child not being born.

Of course this is about abortion. Its transparent.

I will assume you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions until you post your answers.

Yes. I am unwilling to engage in this for two reasons. One, I have not decided a stance on abortion so I am not sure if I agree with your definitions. Two, this thread has nothing to do with apologetics or God.

 

[Yahchristian]

From a technical aspect, yes.

I think the fetus is more than a parasite, in that it has the potential to become a real living human being. However, at some early stage in its gestation, "parasite" clearly describes it better than "real living human being"

So what is your definition for "human being"?

I would agree with the Google definition: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens,

It would seem that something is either a human being or it is not.

What do you see as the difference between a "real living" human being and a "not real living" human being?

In other words, what does "real living" mean to you?

 

[Whateverman]

So what is your definition for "human being"?

I would agree with the Google definition: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens,

For the purposes of this thread, I guess I agree with that too.

It would seem that something is either a human being or it is not.

What do you see as the difference between a "real living" human being and a "not real living" human being?

In other words, what does "real living" mean to you?

Whether something is a human being or not isn't a simple binary question. There are lots of components to it, and those components aren't all universally agreed-upon. For example, as a Christian, I'm guessing you might say a human being has a soul (or something similar), whereas I wouldn't agree that souls are a requirement.

Religious issues aside, the biology is complicated too. Doesn't a human need eyes? What about lungs, a heart or a liver? Does a human being need a cerebral cortex? You'll find that science doesn't have an easy answer for this question, because there are extreme cases in which people lack(ed) organs we think of as fundamental to human life.

I don't mean to avoid answering your question. It's just that there isn't an easy one. My position boils down to the following:

At the beginning of gestation (ie. day 1 of a pregnancy), the mother carries something that isn't a human being yet, but has the potential to be.
At day 274, the mother carries what is effectively a human being. The 274 day process is gradual, such that there isn't a clear point at which a blob of cells becomes a human being.

As such, it's ridiculous to consider a blob of cells the same as a fully-formed human being, just as it's ridiculous to consider a fully-formed human being as a blob of cells.

 

[Yahchristian]

Of course this is about abortion. Its transparent.

Yes. I am unwilling to engage in this for two reasons. One, I have not decided a stance on abortion so I am not sure if I agree with your definitions. Two, this thread has nothing to do with apologetics or God.

I am sorry I asked you such a difficult question...

Atheists, do you agree with these definitions?

fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Who would have thought that simply asking someone if they agree or disagree with a dictionary definition would touch a nerve.


P.S.

Actually, I am not surprised.

In fact it has always intrigued me how atheists (who say there is no God) seem to feel the need to think the Bible is okay with their actions.

For example, a majority of atheists I talk with will try to say the Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong, rather than saying the Bible does say homosexuality is wrong but I don't believe the Bible so who cares what the Bible says.

That is very strange to me. It seems like those atheists actually have a sense of a God that they need to please so to speak.

Likewise, a majority of atheists I talk with will try to say an unborn baby is not a person or human etc. rather than say an unborn baby is a human but our laws say a woman has the right to decide what happens to her unborn human child.