This is helpful revision! (my brain is not happy with the amount of information I have been stuffing into it.)

So: Symbiosis is the living together in permanent or prolonged close association of members of, usually, 2 different species
Here are seven kinds:
1. Mutualism - 2 species benefit, neither suffer
2. Commensalism - 1 species (spp. from now on) benefits whilst the other suffers no serious disadvantage
3. Parasitism - one spp. benefits whilst the other is harmed
4. Amensalism - association is disadvantageous to one spp. whilst the other is not affected
5. Neutralism - both are unaffected
6. Inquilism - benign squatting. One spp. shares the nest or home of the other, and neither are disadvantaged
7. Competition - both species are disadvantaged and harmed
There's also social parasitism which occurs between very closely related spp. and it takes advantage of social interactions. There's a species of insect (forget what) that mate with all the females of a similar spp. and then mate with their own females. Because the offspring of the first mating sesh won't be viable (as they're different spp. mating) then the offspring from the second mating with the females of their own species will have an advantage.

Parasites and hosts cannot have mutually beneficial relationships- if they did, they wouldn't be parasites, they'd be symbionts.

I forget what this has to do with babby, so I'm going to go back to learning about the lifecycle of Plasmodium.

I would guess that's why things like mitochondria which are commonly believed to have existed as separate cells before their current existence in Eukaryote cells aren't considered parasites since both the mitochondria and their hosts benefit?

Yeah, exactly.

off-topic but important.. you just hit 3000 posts Daria.. gratz!

So mommies/babies are.. mutually parasitic? As in, they both benefit (mutualism), but one is harmed (parasitism). ..Though that term is kind of misleading, basically implying that the mom's a parasite. The situation doesn't really fit one on the list. =/ Well, commensalism, sorta. The mom can suffer a serious impairment if the fetus robs her off the the yummy nutrients. Then there's also stretch marks, getting fat, lactating, and poopy diapers.

Congratz on 3k.

Hahaha, my 3Kth post was "Yeah, exactly". About sums it up.

I don't think you can say that it is actually a parasite, Izzy, because it is offspring: it's not an individual organism that has found its way into a host.

Well.. okay, tape worm life cycle: Larva is in feces contaminated food. Secondary host noms food. Larva develops into cysts in the second host. Primary host eats secondary host. Tapeworm grows in primary host. Eggs are released from the primary host's body, and the cycle repeats.

Human life cycle: People have sex. Sperm exits the secondary host's body (not yet in a parasitic form), and enters primary host. Sperm fuses with egg, grows. Zygote is formed. Grows. Baby is born. Baby grows up. Repeat. ..Sorta? Maybe? No? Okay, I'm probably wrong. >_>

Nah because sperm is a gamete and I'm afraid that only plants can be haploid. Even tapeworms have gametes.

Incidentally...

I learnt today that abortion is illegal in Ireland unless the mother's life is at risk or the baby has no chance of survival. I always find it interesting when there is a difference in law between the mainland UK/GB and Ireland, even though I'm aware of differences in politics/sovereignity. In this particular case, both 'The Republic of Ireland' and 'Northern Ireland' have the same law, whereas abortion is legal in Wales, Scotland and England.

Also...

I heard on the news this afternoon that an advert will be screened on Channel 4 (British TV) tonight (24 May) at 10:10pm. It has been commissioned by Marie Stopes International, which is a charity promoting sexual health - particularly amongst women - and has a pro-choice outlook on abortion. Allegedly the 30-second film does not specifically promote abortion, but provides information as to where women can get advice regarding their possible choices.

There has been quite a lot of complaints made already to the Advertising Standards Authority, and more are expected once it is aired.

Some quotes from the BBC News article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8693732.stm:

EURGH.

Fkn that is all.

I had to dissect a fetus pig in bio today.. I know by my definition of life it was never living, but the damn thing was so cute that I couldn't do it.. =/ (Hooray for non-wimpy team members.)

It doesn't change my opinion on abortion, but.. =/

You have a strange definition of cute :/

It was a baby pig with cute ears and ickle blonde hairs. =/

Izzy - that would have killed me, too. All we ever had to dissect in biology (which I loved!) were frogs, but I thought those were very cute too and couldn't really make myself do it either. We were given the option of doing paper work if we were put off at the idea of cutting up small animals. How people do it to kittens and mice, I'll never know, but the bleeding heart animal lover in me expects that we just allow animals to work the way they work without trying to see inside their bellies. They also had, later, a computer program that did it for us without needing to physically touch the animal.

I was away for the dissection of the rat we had to do as part of our Vertebrate Zoology course, but quite pleased that I was. Somehow cutting up mammals is just hard, especially when they have been killed specifically so you can cut them up. I guess that part of me reasons out all the fish/ squid/ starfish/ crustaceans we cut up could have been eaten as well.
At school, I only ever had to cut up a sheep's eyeball and we once watched our teacher poke a marble through the gut of a lamb (the lamb was absent). I don't really understand why, at highschool level they're having you dissect things o_0 It's perfectly easy to learn about stuff to the level required without having to cut it up.
I read an interesting article (here) the other day written by someone who is currently doing research into squid. They bring up an interesting point about how yes, it's all in the name of science- but what does that actually mean? How much of the catching and killing of the animals is just to sate their curiosity?

Becky, dissection starts in middle school. I was purposely absent the days we were doing it back then, but if we're getting a lab grade for it, can't really skip. Ham sammich for lunch was a no go.

Allegedly, last year in my friend's geography class, they had to cut up a squid, the teacher fried it, and then eating it was half of their grade for the assignment.

We cut up squid. It's a bit unsanitary to eat dissections afterwards... However when I'm dissecting, I get the same thing that many vets get when doing surgery: your stomach rumbles. It's apparently an old primal thing at seeing the blood. Considering I've been vegetarian for about ~12 years, it always amuses me.

Love how a thread about whether abortions are morally wrong or not is now talking about dissection.

I'm pro-choice. That doesn't mean I think people should have abortions like they would tic-tacs. No one supports abortion and I really doubt anyone thinks it's something amazing...

I just think it's better for the woman and the child. It is better to terminate a life before it begins than allow it to come into a world where it is unwanted. The emotional and potential physical pain it will endure in its life are far worse than the pain it will never feel, because it has yet to have consciousness. The woman can also fully give her love to a child when she is ready.

As far as law, I don't think abortions should be funded by national healthcare except in the event of an emergency such as miscarriage or rape... if it's an accident, then one should pay out of pocket.

Disagree. It is healthcare and to exclude it from state funded healthcare for moral reasons is a terrible idea. Your two scenarios give me the impression you are saying abortion is somehow worse if the woman is vaguely responsible for getting pregnant (i.e. she consented to sex).... in that case, do you think national healthcare should cover treatment for stuff like obesity related problems or smoking?

Umm, disagree. I support abortion, and everything I bolded sounds amazing.

I think when she said "support abortion" she meant something like "encourage abortion". I think she meant to say no one is like "Yay, abortions!" Maybe some people are, but I think almost everyone wants to try to prevent the situations that call for abortion as much as possible - like using birth control and so on. That's why it is sort of contradictory to push for abstinence-only education in schools and be against abortion; if you don't tell someone how to protect themselves they are more likely to need one.

Yeah, I think most people would say that in a perfect world there would be no need for abortions. But alas as usual the world is less than perfect.

Is there a need for abortions?

After all, we can't justify past abortions as necessary since we don't know the outcomes had they not been performed...

That's a WHOLE other debate - one that i enjoyed having with my brother-in-law recently.

B-I-L: People who get ill from smoking should have to pay the cost of their healthcare.
Me: Why?
B-I-L: Because it is self-inflicted. They know the risks, and they are putting a strain on the NHS.
Me: But what about obese people?
B-I-L: It's their fault! They shouldn't put a burden on our health service!
Me: But it isn't ALWAYS as simple as just... greed. Sometimes it is psychological, or physiological.
B-I-L: Well, in that case, the NHS can cover it.
Me: But it can be difficult to judge.
B-I-L: Well, it is just that smoking/obesity is self-inflicted.
Me: Well, what if someone is driving and pulls out of a junction when they shouldn't... and therefore gets injured as a result of a collision.
B-I-L: Well, they shouldn't be so stupid! They should pay! The other party should get it free, it wasn't their fault.
Me: And what if drop something on their foot, and break a toe?
B-I-L: They should be more careful! They should pay!
Me: And what if, when showing off in front of your wife's little brother (i.e. me), you decide to punch a window: showing him how clever you are at breaking it, without hurting yourself. Except, because of the idiot you are, you put your hand straight the glass and end up needing to go to A&E to remove the glass from your fingers, and get stitches? What about in that situation?
B-I-L: ... maybe you have a point.

Yes, OT, but I felt the need to share. I love 'debates' with my brother-in-law.

As for abortion...



I think some might argue that there are an awful lot of children who are born, but not necessarily planned or particularly 'wanted', but who do end up having a perfectly wonderful life because the parents still fulfill their parental obligations. The implication is that an unwanted pregnancy means an unhappy child-->adult? Equally, there are plenty of planned children who have an awful childhood without love.

Oh good god. I'm sorry, but that's just astounding.

Why?

I can see that in cases of rape resulting in pregnancy, or severely deformed foetuses, or cases where the pregnancy puts the mother in great danger either physically or mentally, that an abortion seems like the best thing to do, but since we don't know what would have happened had foetuses not been aborted, we can't objectively say that abortion was the 'best' thing to do. So we can't talk about a need for abortions.

I was just picking up on where CM had said there would be no need for abortions in a perfect world.

But the world isn't perfect. I don't really think there's a way to argue this.. It's true that you don't know whether you're aborting a Hitler or an Einstein, but does it really matter? There's no need for people period. We exist because it's convenient for us. On the grander scale, we don't matter. Can we objectively say that living is the 'best' thing to do? For us, maybe, but should we take other people's/other planet's peoples', etc. thoughts into consideration? If yes, because we're human and rawrrawrrawr we ownz da earthzzz, then realize that the people of other galaxies can be totally troubled by our existence and would be 'better off' without us, and decimate us as we do rain forests. So then, we should stop killing virtually everything because we really don't know when the flying squirrel will mutate into a super hero. But that's not practical, because it gives an alien species the right to take us out with their cool laser-stuffs. ..Yeah. If no, then it doesn't matter anyway, because that baby won't matter.

Wait. What. Uh. I forgot the point I was making. But yeah. That.. might make sense.

Oh dear... perhaps i'm not good at articulating myself, sorry.

I'm assuming that by talking about a 'perfect world' CM is referring to a world where people don't rape eachother, all babies are planned or at least welcomed if unplanned etc, and hence no 'need' for abortions. I was just wondering if these conditions we've changed in 'perfecting' the world really necessitate abortions. So it really had very little to do with a perfect world, just the use of the word 'need'.

The argument that nothing 'matters' essentially annuls any debate, so let's put it back in the bag. I'm thinking from a more human point of view, not universal, where the 'best' thing to do is that which brings about the greatest 'good' (whether you equate good with happiness, or flourishing, or fulfilling your duty...).

In our 'perfect' world where every baby is planned/welcomed, has no genetic defects the parents would be unwilling/unable to cope with, etc. abortions wouldn't be necessary.

Hmm. Random. If you were entirely able to know beforehand what your baby would grow up to be like, would you abort if you knew the kid would be a future threat to society?

IATB: I'm still not sure what you're arguing. Obviously raising a child has a severe impact on your life. Many people feel they would be better off without it, or they wouldn't want abortions in the first place. In cases where the woman is really young it's pretty clear that raising a child would be difficult for her, she is likely to lack the financial stability to raise a family and she may need to drop out of school to do it, which makes it difficult to have a career and a family.

Yes, hypothetical woman would probably love her hypothetical child her very much and be happy with her life without the abortion. But she would also be happy if she aborted the child and had another one later in life when she was ready, and she would be much better off than in the first scenario.

True, but only if you ignore a lot of the unhappiness many women go through as a result of an abortion whether it is sheer regret, or sadness that they felt it was the only option, at that time. I don't think it is really possible to say that someone would necessarily be happier, just different.

I have a friend who became pregnant at about 21 and felt that she and her boyfriend (now her ex-boyfriend) would be unable to raise a child, so she had a termination. Now, even though the potential parents are no longer together, she regrets the decision every day, and the memory of the abortion plays quite a harsh role in her life.

Another friend(ish) became pregnant at 15, and also chose to terminate. Financially, she would not have had any problem raising the child as her family - although somewhat 'unconventional' - would almost certainly have played a huge role in the upbringing, with about as much support as humanly possible without being surrogate mothers. Career/education-wise, she is now in no better a position than she would have been had she dropped schooling for being a mother. So in some ways, having the child would not have altered particular aspects of her life as much as it would for other people. But she did have an abortion, and I believe that now, four years on, she barely recalls it. To her, I think the termination was almost just a form of extended-contraception.

The best friend of the above girl was also pregnant at about the same time (and same age), but had the baby (and has had another one since) despite having no financial stability, no supportive family, and no father for the baby. She lives almost entirely on government benefits (although has very recently found herself a new man, who has taken on the role of provider), and has a life that is 100% devoted to her children with no regrets at all.

All the above were unplanned pregnancies, by the way.

re: CMHD's argument. I think it is extremely difficult, practically impossible, to say that aborting an unwanted baby will result in a happier mother/future/life. It is too much of a sweeping statement, and I don't think it is a fair generalisation. BUT, I do know what you mean. A potential-mother can only make their decision based on available facts and their emotions at that time. Even if she is in an awful place in her life, it is possible that having a baby might provide the missing happiness and meaning. Equally... it could just make things a whole lot worse. And it works the other way around too: I know, as I'm sure you do, women who are raising a child from a planned pregnancy with plenty of money, and yet are totally unsuitable/unhappy/incapable/irresponsible etc.

Predicting someone's happiness is far too hard.



This question gets thrown about quite a bit just as a result of the "designer baby" debate, or gender-requirements in the far-East. I think if predictions about the future were added to the equation, there'd be riots!

IATB: Sorry that my response wasn't that well articulated- I was still drunk from an all-day barbecue and just astounded.
Personally, I don't feel it has anything to do with the "need" for abortion. As Izzy put, we don't live in a perfect world. In the world we do live, any woman, under any circumstances should have the final say about what goes on in her uterus. Yes, I know that the decision for abortion is not one side if it occurs within a relationship (or even outside a relationship if the two can be in touch), but that ultimate decision? It solely down to the woman.
Asking questions like "is abortion necessary" just gets my hackles raised and I hear Emma Goldman turn in her grave.

As a thought experiment, I'm trying to work out what the world would need to be like for abortion to never be needed as an option:

No rape
100% perfect contraception
100% healthy children
Perfect social support or healthcare system
Elimination of poverty
No over-population

... Well, given that none of those are going to happen any time soon, sadly, I think it's pretty clear that I'm pro-choice.

For your entertainment, a super cynical point of view that is a bit funny even if you disagree with him! (At least I find him funny)

You forgot a lack of idiots. Because tons and tons of people still wouldn't use that contraception and they'd still pop out babies and still leave them in dumpsters. This includes all of the FAS and drug-addled babies people would have. You can't say 100% healthy children unless fetuses suddenly become immune to crack.

Genetic engineering inexpensive and available to all those that want it.

..I don't think it's likely, but I can see abortions happening because a couple wanted a boy and got a girl or vice versa.

mata, you also left religion off your list. One of the main reasons i hate the catholic church, and part of why i no longer practise, is the neanderthalic attitude to contraception and protection they endorse. Ridiculous nonsense, the lot of it.

Looks like the exercise is working, Mata. I'd also like to throw in the fact that sex ed (at least here) seems to just teach kids that having sex is fine. Which it is. But some don't seem to be listening to the bits about birth control. My eldest told me that, in her year at school, there were five girls pregnant and one who'd already given birth, and that's only the ones she knew about.

So the list now becomes:

No rape
100% perfect contraception
100% healthy children
Perfect social support or healthcare system
Elimination of poverty
No over-population
No idiots
No drugs
The abolition of the Catholic church
No sex prior to leaving school


My only issue with this is that it's all going to get a touch draconian...

After lists like that, it gets easier to see how termination/ abortion is more sensible.

It makes me very angry that there are some women out there who still think that the only contraception available to them is the pill or condoms! When a friend of mine was having problems with her pill I mentioned my implant and she was like... what??? She had no concept of anything other than what the dorctor had given her over ten years ago! It is ridiculous.

It isn't just the catholic church that is against contraception. Try teaching room full of teenage muslims about condoms! And incidentally, there is only a ban on condom use as far as the catholic church is concerned, they have never said anything about hormonal contraceptives because they are unsure as to how they fit into the biblical teachings. Barrier methods are forbidden, hormonal methods are effectively swept under the carpet because they don't know what to say! (at least that was the way it was when I watched a documentary a while back- I don't pay much attention to the pope tbh) It is amazing how many catholic women don't realise this though.

Myself I am pro choice- it amazes me how many women aren't. I've never been in the situation but I have seen several of my students put themselves through hell because they are pro life.

Well, quite. I mean, there's some things on there which would just never be achieved without the aid of either a fixed barrier or an Orwellian scenario involving television sets that can transmit as well as receive. Do we have the resources to means-test everyone for fitness to procreate? Could we really do what Henry VIII failed to do and abolish the Catholic church?

The big issue is that sex is fun and it's free.* As long as it stays that way (and it should), we're never going to stop people getting accidentally pregnant. However, I do still draw the line at using it as a form of post-coital contraception for those who just couldn't be arsed to use anything in the first place.


*Obviously I'm not including prostitution in this statement.

thank you for mentioning this. i understand that catholicism's negative influence is widespread and nearly impossible to ignore, but i do get tired of people pinning literally every evil in the world on them and pretending as though no one whose life has prospered thanks to religion exists. religious zealots are terrible, but so are zealots of every kind..and that includes the atheist ones. that isn't to say that their views aren't archaic, i'm not saying that at all, but it feels like the catholics are bashed more than most thanks to the handful of exceptionally noisy idiots that ruin it for people who might actually take their teachings into account and behave kindly towards their fellow man.

I think most if not all people are against that, but my question is, how often does that really happen? Sure, people don't always make intelligent decisions. Maybe the first time they get accidentally pregnant, they brushed off the idea, or tried to use just the pull-out method or rhythm method or something... but I think they would get pretty scared after that. I just don't think it happens very much at all - abortions cost money and the procedure isn't a walk in the park, and I think most people know that. I really don't see anyone going "Oh we could use a condom, or y'know, I could just get an abortion so let's not bother." I just think it is almost a moot point to bring up in discussions seeing as it is rather implausible and there's really no way that anyone could differentiate between the two situations in a clinical setting.

Gothic, whilst your argument stands up to some degree, I feel you're attributing way too much in the way of conscious decision making on behalf of the participants. I suspect that there's hardly anybody who says "Oh we could use a condom, or y'know, I could just get an abortion so let's not bother." That's showing that they are thinking about it and, in that instance, they might just go for the morning-after pill.

No, the most likely scenario is that two people have unprotected sex without even a moments consideration of the consequences and it's only when the woman misses a period that they realise what's happened. The numbers of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies and diagnosed STIs is still on the increase in spite of the sex education programme. As abhorrent a process as it is, the number of abortions is increasing too. And you can get them on the NHS, so you aren't even paying for them.

And if you still aren't convinced, I invite you to go into my local NHS clinic. They have a whole wing dedicated to sexual health matters and it's perpetually full of people getting contraceptives, needing check-ups or looking for help regarding unwanted pregnancy.

What would you prefer? That these people should be forced to raise the child, or maybe just forced to have the baby and give it up for adoption? I think that is a bad idea (the first especially so). But I think this issue basically comes down to weighing up a few basic value judgements that can't really be debated: how much you value the life of the foetus, the freedom to choose, etc, which I suspect we don't agree on.


That is a good thing. It is what the sexual health wing is for, and I see no reason why the NHS shouldn't pay for these things. Maybe I missed your point here?

As for point #2 - I'm sure there are lots of unwanted pregnancies; how they are caused is something else. I'm convinced there are lots of them, definitely.

I see your point, but I guess it's just because the terror of an unwanted pregnancy/STIs to me combined with education I've had makes me super-aware of being safe during sex. Like I mentioned earlier, I can easily see a couple saying "OK, just pull out before you finish" and that going wrong, but having sex without considering consequences at all is harder for me to imagine. Maybe it does happen a little more often than I think it does, but once again, I don't think there's any way to screen for that, so if you accept abortions being available to everyone you seem to have to accept abortion regardless of whether people tried to prevent the pregnancy. Not that you can't be against the idea of it, of course, I just find it won't contribute much to a discussion.

In America you do have to pay for abortions; healthcare that passed recently might change that for some instances, but as of now I'm pretty positive you do have to pay, and it isn't cheap. Unfortunately I don't think that is actually much of a dissuading factor, as our teen pregnancy rates can be high. Depending on the state we also have laws where if you're under 18 you have to tell your parents (or the clinic has to). I don't agree with those and I think they're unfortunate.

I'm probably repeating myself from earlier in this thread, but I think the Roe v. Wade *basic* idea of 1st trimester is okay, 2nd you can interfere for health of the mother, and 3rd you can intervene for the health of the baby is a good compromise. I think most people would know within the first three months if they were pregnant - of course this doesn't always happen (they've made a reality tv show about not knowing you're pregnant over here) but I do understand the other side as the further the baby develops the more of a human life it seems to be.

Ok, so I'm going to put my two cents in and then I will leave this topic as it is. Partially because of the controversy behind it and partially because of the following.

I'm pro-choice. That being said, a little over 3 years ago I was conditionally pro-choice. Meaning that I went with the whole idea that an abortion was a good thing to save a life or in the case of a raping but not for much else. Then I was the unlucky recipient of a leaky condom.

I had a one-night stand with a girl that I was friends with for a good while. We had our fun but it wouldn't work between us and we knew it. We used a condom and all was good. Then about a month later things changed. She called me and said that she was pregnant.

You have no idea how much that moment hurt. I knew that we were safe and that the condom didn't break. However, she was pregnant. We discussed that she should have an abortion. Considering that she had a miscarriage just a couple of months earlier from another guy, it would have been much safer for her among so many other reasons.

Honestly, that was the least of my reasons. All I wanted to do at that point was run. To just get away from that extremely early and abrupt end to my life was everything that I wanted. I know it was cowardly of me to be that way. I know that I had no right to even think of such a thing. But its the only thing I could think of at that point.

We eventually decided that she would have the abortion. We did not talk about it again. Approximately a month later she calls me, clearly in pain, saying that she has miscarried and that she was thrown around by her drunk father. She had decided that she would keep the child and that I would make the right decision to stay with them.

It was at that point that I decided that I was fully Pro-Choice. I suddenly understood why there are so many teen pregnancies. Its because of girls that don't know any better or just want their lives to be set. Or whatever you want to call that behavior.

I talked to her once after that incident, about a week later, and haven't seen or heard from her since. I hate to say this, but I'm glad she is gone from my life.

So now I leave you to discuss this issue amongst yourselves. Just know that you will never and can never know what your stance really is until you are in that position. You may think you do now, or think you know best... but until you experience it, you will never truly know.

I'm not saying I disagree with abortion and, as a man, I'm not exactly entitled to an opinion; it's the woman's body and ergo her choice. If a woman becomes pregnant by accident (such as the percentage chance of a contraceptive not working) then that's one thing. My comments were in relation to the fact that some people use abortion as a method of contraception, which I believe is wrong regardless of how one views a foetus.


Yes, I think you might have - this was directed towards Gothic's comments about people considering abortion before even having sex. I think the clinic is a good idea. However, what galls me is the fact that it's chock full of teenagers and the majority are there to find help following unprotected sex; the numbers of younger people having another test for an STI or going for an abortion is worryingly high.

Gothic, I admire your personal stance against the notion of contracting an STI or needing an abortion. I understand that you find it hard to comprehend how people can't think about the consequences, but perhaps you live in a better area than I do.

Everyone should get tested, leo! Whenever partners change, regardless of what methods of contraception they're using. Flood the clinics with people being sensible about their health! It's easier to get an STI than it is to get pregnant (for example, using someone else's towel, toilet or bong will definitely NOT get you preggo, but it might land you with the herp!) but because STIs are perceived as the consequence of dirty, slutty behavior versus the dim tragedy of an unexpected pregnancy, I think most girls my age are putting STI concerns on a back burner. Which is no good. I mean, herpes may not scream and poo, but you still got that thing for life. FO LIFE. And apparently chlamydia is growing more prevalent in college-age ladies using hormonal contraception, on account of it's asymptomatic for lots of ladies, but that business will wreak havoc on any procreation plans.

In summation: it's a good idea to avoid unwanted babby, it's also a good idea to protect your genitals. Condoms and testing and stigma-free open communication for all! And abortions, if need be!