Human Fetus A "Parasite" - The State News, MI State U

Renewamerica.us ^ | 8/2/06 | warner todd huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

What are they teaching our children at MSU in East Lansing, Michigan? It appears to be that a human fetus is no different than a "tapeworm" or a "parasitical creature". They are also teaching that a newspaper is the proper place for devaluing human life as a recent article by Shane Krouse in The State News proves.

Shane Krouse, a sophomore and State News columnist, directly and unequivocally equates the human fetus, which he rather unscientifically describes as "a wad of cells", to parasites. He doesn’t stop with parasites, but goes much further than that, of course, as he lambastes the right to lifers, Catholics and "fundamentalists" and God, as well, over the abortion issue.

But, there seems to be a lot of illogic in the youngster's "reasoning". And, his entire stance is one that easily leads to a devaluing of life outside the womb as well as that inside. Nor does he adequately determine when that fetus magically goes from the "wad of cells" stage to human status.

To begin with, Mr. Krouse maintains that abortion cannot be considered "murder" because the fetus, that "wad of cells", is "not yet living". So destruction of it through abortion is a lifestyle choice as opposed to the ending of the life of a baby.

Krouse attempts to give logical reasons for his devaluing of the fetus.

"During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells. A mere wad of cells doesn't equate to a fully functioning, living human being. A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions. A wad of cells doesn't have the capability to inhale or exhale with its lungs. A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment."

A prosaic argument that many in the pro-abortion crowd commonly make, how ever logically unsound. To fully accept this "nutriment" argument it could easily be observed that an infant STILL "cannot survive independently" even after birth. I don't know of many babies that can get up out of their cradle and make their own bottle, so this means they are still 100% reliant on getting their "nutriment" from Mother. Taken to the logical end, the "nutriment" argument does not stand up.

After saying the fetus is not a living human, he goes on to claim that this same "wad of cells" is no different than a dog or cat in that those creatures are considered "property".

"The mother deserves every right to make a decision to abort her fetus. The supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees Americans have the right to their property. Are pets not considered the property of a human? Humans provide pets with food, water and a habitat, just as a mother provides a fetus a habitat inside of the womb, along with food and oxygen."

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this youngster claiming that a baby should be considered "property" in the same way we do pets? It seems to me that we once had a law in this great nation where certain people were considered "property". We called that concept "slavery". A war was fought over it if I recall. Is Mr. Krouse hoping we might return to a day where we consider certain classes of humans "property"? If so, what rights do children really have? And, I am curious if Mr. Krouse's studies are being paid for by his Mommy and Daddy? Mightn't we still apply the "property" tag to Mr. Krouse since he might possibly not be able to "exist" on his own without his Parent's support?

I suppose this is why we send children to college, to learn, but Mr. Krouse doesn't seem as far along as one might hope in that process.

In fairness to young Mr. Krouse, he does attempt to keep his discussion in relations to that "wad of cells" and not the born child. However, all his reasons devastate his arbitrary time line.

"...the fetus should be considered property of its mother. Not to mention, the wad of cells inside her doesn't have the ability to choose for itself."

What 2 month-old infant has the "ability to choose for itself", after all? His criteria continues to be this "ability to chose" or think, or react, or help itself. But no baby has that ability for years after birth. So, logic dictates that his criteria for bestowing "life" can easily be extended past birth and on into the first few years of life. And some University Professors have propounded upon just such a theory.

Mr. Krouse's next line of attack is the aforementioned comparison of the fetus to a tapeworm.

"If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.

Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?"

But, here his logic also breaks down. He has claimed that a fetus is not "alive", not able to move, or think, or carry on like the "live" mother that houses the fetus and should, therefore, be killed off at will with no compunctions or consideration. Yet, his example of the tapeworm or other parasite is ill fitting because a tapeworm is fully able to exhibit all the various levels of "life" while inside or outside the human. And, since Mr. Krouse is using the criteria of being fully functional as one to bestow "life" then he should be incensed that we humans might try to kill off a tapeworm or other parasite. After all, those creatures are "alive" in the very sense that Mr. Krouse is claiming that a fetus is not, yet he seems to have no problem with killing a tapeworm.

Might we suspect that, if he has no interest in the life of the tapeworm using his own criteria, he has none for the life of the baby? If he is willing to ignore his criteria for life in the killing of the tapeworm, why should we assume that his criteria should suddenly mean anything to him where it concerns a baby?

His inconsistency is alarming.

God is Krouse's next target. Hope the big guy doesn't get too mad at our former little "wad of cells" in Michigan. Krouse veers into the field of in vitro fertilization and the "tragic fate of many fertilized eggs" he is shocked to see all around him.

"Fundamentalists fiercely oppose abortion because they believe it is murder. They often recognize those who are "slaughtered" by holding vigils and other ceremonies.

Do any of these individuals realize that according to the National Institutes of Health, 25 percent of conceived embryos perish within the first six weeks due to complications such as failure to implant to the uterus wall? That's right -- a quarter of all "humans" conceived end up 'dying.'"

He fails to understand that an embryo that fails to implant into the uterus walls is a natural failure. That would be considered an "act of God" to right to life advocates. However, a Doctor vacuuming the mangled limbs of a baby in the womb after having cut it to pieces is far from such an act of God, far from a natural occurrence.

Religious people leave the choice of when life may be bestowed to God and should God decide that a fetus should be aborted, they accept that fate, even when saddened about it. There is no inconsistency about there. What is God’s area of responsibility -- who lives and who dies via natural selection -- is not questioned by man. (And for his knowledge, many right to lifers do, indeed, dislike in vitro fertilization for the very reason that it is man deciding to a great degree.)

Of course, that does not stop our little Mr. Krouse from resorting to hyperbole about his feelings about God's decisions.

"It would appear that the 'loving' God of these fundamentalists is many more times guilty of murder than all the human race's abortionists combined."

Krouse sums up his entire argument with the following:

"Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy."

If "freeloading" is to be a criterion to exclude the status of "life" then perhaps we might "abort" everyone on welfare and anyone who is not wholly subsisting by his own efforts? Perhaps the aged and infirm should be eliminated in an "abortion". Maybe the mentally unfit, or those in a coma fit Mr. Krouse's criteria of not truly being "alive"? As we are slaughtering them, we can let them know they have Shane Krouse to thank for ending their useless, unalive existence. And we can let them know that Michigan State University seems to think such an idea is perfectly reasonable.

[elc]

Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy."

My 3 1/2 month old is still freeloading her nutrients from me, via my milk. Guess it would be alright to make a "lifestyle choice" if I wanted?

[AmishDude]

If anything qualifies as a parasite, it's a journalism student.

[DarkSavant]

Think this guy is bad, you should have read John Bice and Matt Treadwell's editorials in that paper.

[WriteOn]

What a stupid wad of cells.

[fortunecookie]

Mr. Krouse writes: Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb.

Well, think of all the money we can save by simply not operating on unborn babies in utero. Why bother? Prenatal healthcare? Slash those budgets, too, then fewer parasites will be indulged./sarcasm

At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy.

Gee, and I thought the placenta nourished the infant, it's purpose being to nourish baby without depleting mother. It does presume mother is getting proper nourishment herself, but heaven forbid, we focus on properly nourishing the mother rather than focus on the little 'parasite'. I don't think this about many people but I really hope he decides against fatherhood.

If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.

Gee, aren't we lucky HIS mother chose to nurture her little parasite.

I'll say it again, Mr. Krouse is operating on faulty logic, on many points. In particular, what parasite or tapeworm can continue to thrive and grow once it leaves it's host? Should we just deny food and water to newborns, those little moochers? After all, they can't write brilliant pieces like this author and support themselves?

[PanzerKardinal]

Here's a photo of Mr. Shane Krouse

Here my body of my email to Mr. Krouse

Shane:

I've got to congratulate you. During college, I tried all sort of things to try to get girls. But writting an article in the school newspaper proclaiming you solidarity with oppressed women, now that classic. Seriously, that really is classic.

But feminist chicks aren't the easiest and you got to be able to stand all those hairy legs and pits

Anyway, to really close the deal with those feminist chicks, you have got to change you appearance.

Shane, my advice is if you really want to close the deal, you got to do something with your look. Feminist chick say they want sensitivity, but what they really want is a stud (unless they're lesbos and even then....)

Perhaps a new haircut and maybe some Proactiv acne solution will help. And maybe grow a beards. Feminist Chicks dig beards, just look how many of them wear Che t-shirts.

Shane, good try on that article idea and a little more effort and you'll have them eating out of your hands.

Your good buddy,

"Panzerkardinal"

[fortunecookie]

Nor does he adequately determine when that fetus magically goes from the "wad of cells" stage to human status.

Um, those aren't green beans growing in the mother. They are human, human 'wad of cells' at the very least. We don't deliver baby humans sprouted from the cabbage patch. Just like baby human cells tossed into a garden won't yield green beans, or corn, or cabbage. It's a thin line he walks, questioning what constitutes 'human'.

[Bommer]

"During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells. A mere wad of cells doesn't equate to a fully functioning, living human being. A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions. A wad of cells doesn't have the capability to inhale or exhale with its lungs. A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment."

Funny, this same assclown would be jumping for joy if a speck of living bacteria was found on the Mars as proof of life, yet here on earth, it a concidered wad of meaningless crap!

[GeronL]

The left is trying to do the same to conservatives, but they've barely started

[Dyslexic Mom]

My daughter and I have had several discussions about "choice". I came up with the (In my own humble opinion)utimate answer. If a woman chooses to abort, she chose to abort and stopped -via extrodinary measures- a life. If she does nothing out of the ordinary (for the most part) a fully functioning life will result. If someone takes a tray full of frozen embryos, or the parts to mix together, out of the freezer and does nothing (say- puts it on the counter and walks away for 9 months), nothing will happen -no baby.

For most circumstances it really does boil down to choice. Do you CHOOSE to abort this life before it has a chance to survive or not?

[edzo4]

this is my favorite part of the article:

Shane Krouse is an MSU sophomore and State News columnist. Reach him at krousesh@msu.edu

[mombonn]

Sad to hear this garbage from my alma mater. Proud that I've never donated a dime since I left there, despite numerous pleas from the alumni association.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Well, you KEEP it that way! We don't need to aiding and abetting the garbage coming from our universities!

[Know your rights]

what parasite or tapeworm can continue to thrive and grow once it leaves it's host?

Also, what parasite is of the same species as its host? This guy is educated beyond his intelligence.

[Know your rights]

During college, I tried all sort of things to try to get girls. But writting an article in the school newspaper proclaiming you solidarity with oppressed women, now that classic.

I'm confident that at least one in four men who claim to be "pro-choice" claim it with the hopes of getting girls. (And if they get a girl and impregnate her, the ability to push her into having an abortion is icing on the cake.)

[Mrs. P]

At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy.

I'm a little bit sleep deprived because of the carloads of "wads of cells" who kept arriving and departing from the cemetery across the road until 1 AM, probably this kid's friends, I'm sure they were all about his age.

This is just another know it all kid with all the answers. I wonder if he is fully self-supporting already at the ripe old age of 19, or if he relies on his mommy and daddy for anything. I wonder who pays for his food and his facial cleanser. I wonder if he buys his own socks, and has a job lucrative enough to pay for his liberal education.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!