Clearly you weren't talking about me there, Is Mise. It should be apparent to even you by now that I have used, and am happy to use, the most emotive possible language to describe the epitome of sweetness and innocence that is the unborn human child, as it makes no difference to my argument.

But in fairness to those whose arguments for abortion do rely on portraying unborn babies as parasites, an unborn human child, full of so much potential, is, by definition, a parasite: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parasite

If Abraham is the figment of someones imagination, then it begs the question, why would someone want to create this Abraham myth? I am sure it was for some greater purpose than simply creating an historical narrative, when no such narrative existed before. The bible is full of anecdotal stories, Moses and the ten commandments, Noah's Ark, Jonah living in a whale, and many more. All could be classed as ripping yarns, but what was their purpose?
Is the bible a bit like Shakespeare's plays, a mix of historical fact with a liberal amount of poetic licence, making for a good story. Are those who believe in the biblical narrative as historical fact, as misguided as someone who would believe Shakespeare wrote history books?
One very good reason for creating stories based on god to explain the un-explainable would be to give the creator of the "facts" and their descendants, an air of superiority over those not privy to this firsthand knowledge from the ultimate being. This makes the lesser ones in society, the majority, subservient to the privileged group. By extension that privileged group are the natural leaders with authority vested in them from the ultimate being, who possess all knowledge and can only pass on that knowledge indirectly through those that have the ear of god, that privileged group.
Henry VIII believed that his agenda was exactly the same as God's agenda, and anyone who opposed him, opposed God, and therefore was a heretic, there could be but one punishment for heretics, death. it all worked very nicely for Henry as it has for so many others throughout history.

Dear Paul,

http://www.amazon.com/History-Begins-Sumer-Thirty-Nine-Recorded/dp/0812212762 tells the source of many of the biblical myths. The writers of the Bible were influenced by the myths of the people around them. Samuel Noah Kramer translated many of the cuneiform tablets which predated the Bible by over 2,000 years.

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm tells of the Sumerian myths. Almost all the Biblical myths were taken from other peoples living in the area.

AJ,

"Parasites exist in huge variety and include animals, plants, and micro-organisms. They may live as ectoparasites on the surface of the host (e.g. arthropods such as ticks, mites, lice, fleas, and many insects infesting plants) or as endoparasites in the gut or tissues (e.g. many kinds of worm), and cause varying degrees of damage or disease to the host"

Your reference doesn't apply because part of the nucleus of the child is a natural function of the mother's body and the other part is a natural function of the father's body together they ensure that the natural continuation of the human race takes place.

Hardly parasitic; that's why I thought that you were trying to be humourous, to think that you are serious would be to ignore the intelligence displayed in others of your posts.

Is Mise,
In the definition they use every living being is a parasite, all humans get their nourishment from other bodies they cannot survive outside of absorbing from other living bodies as they take another life to survive, unless they only drink water and absorb earthen salts.

So you WERE referring to me and my allegedly "weird theories" then, Is Mise.

Sorry, but I've made it abundantly clear that my argument doesn't rely on portraying an unborn human baby, adored by our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ child, as a parasite. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

If my "theories" are "weird", then explain why and settle this once and for all. Of course, you can't, and that's why you're grasping at straws now by attributing completely fictional assumptions to my reasoning.

You're getting desperate now. I know it's hard to realise that you've gone your whole life with an opinion that is stupid and just plain wrong. Believe me, I know what that's like. But get over it.

By the way, I was only going by the dictionary definition, but once again, that's irrelevant anyway.