"fetuses are parasites"

[Trurl]

First of all, what is a “parasite” depends on the definition, and just like all definitions in biology - this one is also arbitrary. The concept of parasitism means that one entity draws nutrients from another entity’s biological resources, and without this act it (the parasite) could not survive - in other words it means a “biological dependence”. It also includes that the process is “one way” only, only one party will benefit. When both entities benefit from the sharing of the resources, it is called “symbiotic relationship”. Clearly, this is not the case with the woman-fetus relationship. The fetus takes the woman’s bodily resources, and gives nothing in return - in the biological sense. The woman may cherish this relationship, but that is just an emotion. Biologically speaking, the woman gives, and fetus receives. Furthermore, the pregnancy is quite detrimental to the woman’s health - again in the strict biological sense.

If someone - arbitrarily - defines “parasitism” as one entity drawing bodily resources from a being of a different species, then the fetus is not a “parasite”. Of course, such a defintion is totally arbitrary, and in this case we can still say that the fetus exhibits parasitic behavior.

The argument that a 5 month old baby would be also a parastic entity is just dumb. Once the birth happens, the biological dependence ceases (no more sharing of the blood-stream, independent breathing, etc…). As soon as the independent existence starts, anyone can supply the necessary nutrition and care. To try to drag in other kinds of “dependence” is again a futile attempt to muddy the waters. Sociologically speaking people do call others “parasites”, but that has nothing to do with the biological relationship. As usual, words have several meanings, and it is quite common to create confusion by using these words in an inapproprtiate manner.

So, if someone does say that the fetuses exhibit a parasitical behavior, that is clear, precise biological speech. What should happen if the woman does not wish to maintain this relationship is a different issue, but the “parasitical” behavior cannot be denied.

 

[revert_jen]

If someone - arbitrarily - defines “parasitism” as one entity drawing bodily resources from a being of a different species, then the fetus is not a “parasite”. Of course, such a defintion is totally arbitrary, and in this case we can still say that the fetus exhibits parasitic behavior.

Well, technically, all definitions of words are arbitrary. Biologists appear to have defined parasitism to be a relationship between organisms of two different species, at least that is what American Heritage medical dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica say. You can arbitrarily define parasite to mean something else, but if you’re going to define it in your own way, then anything can be a parasite. I declare apples to be parasites because I have defined “parasite” to mean a tree fruit.

The argument that a 5 month old baby would be also a parastic entity is just dumb. Once the birth happens, the biological dependence ceases (no more sharing of the blood-stream, independent breathing, etc.). As soon as the independent existence starts, anyone can supply the necessary nutrition and care.

AFAIK, it is not a characteristic of all parasites that they are tied to a particular organism of the other species. Fleas, for example can feed off of many different organisms, even different species. The biological dependence between a breastfeeding mother and her child is parasitic just as much as a fetal relationship, and this is not changed by the fact that the baby could feed off a different “host.” Fleas don’t share the bloodstream, and assuming they breathe (I know very little about fleas) they do so independantly. Many parasites have an independant existance.

In any case the young of many species–mammals, certainly, but also birds and other species as well–and the pre-born of all animal species (AFAIK) are completely helpless unless they take resources from the older members of the species. Saying that this is a parasitic relationship stretches the definition of parasitism quite far out of what it is intended to mean.

So, if someone does say that the fetuses exhibit a parasitical behavior, that is clear, precise biological speech. What should happen if the woman does not wish to maintain this relationship is a different issue, but the “parasitical” behavior cannot be denied.

Well, lots of things exhibit parasitical behavior without actually being parasites–the five-month-old baby mentioned above, the very ill, injured animals, etc. (Although I think in the case of a fetus it would make more sense to talk about a relationship exhibiting parasitical characteristics than talking about behavior on the part of a fetus who is not “behaving” so much as “existing.”) Equating the statements “fetuses exhibit parasitical behavior” and “fetuses are parasites” is neither clear nor precise. Humans sometimes exhibit canine behavior. It doesn’t make them dogs.

–Jen

 

[Robert_in_SD]

First of all, what is a “parasite” depends on the definition, and just like all definitions in biology - this one is also arbitrary. The concept of parasitism means that one entity draws nutrients from another entity’s biological resources, and without this act it (the parasite) could not survive - in other words it means a “biological dependence”. It also includes that the process is “one way” only, only one party will benefit. When both entities benefit from the sharing of the resources, it is called “symbiotic relationship”. Clearly, this is not the case with the woman-fetus relationship. The fetus takes the woman’s bodily resources, and gives nothing in return - in the biological sense. The woman may cherish this relationship, but that is just an emotion. Biologically speaking, the woman gives, and fetus receives. Furthermore, the pregnancy is quite detrimental to the woman’s health - again in the strict biological sense.

If someone - arbitrarily - defines “parasitism” as one entity drawing bodily resources from a being of a different species, then the fetus is not a “parasite”. Of course, such a defintion is totally arbitrary, and in this case we can still say that the fetus exhibits parasitic behavior.

The argument that a 5 month old baby would be also a parastic entity is just dumb. Once the birth happens, the biological dependence ceases (no more sharing of the blood-stream, independent breathing, etc…). As soon as the independent existence starts, anyone can supply the necessary nutrition and care. To try to drag in other kinds of “dependence” is again a futile attempt to muddy the waters. Sociologically speaking people do call others “parasites”, but that has nothing to do with the biological relationship. As usual, words have several meanings, and it is quite common to create confusion by using these words in an inapproprtiate manner.

So, if someone does say that the fetuses exhibit a parasitical behavior, that is clear, precise biological speech. What should happen if the woman does not wish to maintain this relationship is a different issue, but the “parasitical” behavior cannot be denied.

Welcom to the forums Trurl:

I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here. By definition, a parasitic relationship requires two separate species. What I would agree with is that some people can use the term in a more casual or loose manner, to suggest that relationships between two persons can resemble that of host and parasite. But let’s be honest about the term up front. Let’s not re-define it just to fit the circumstances of an un-planned pregnancy.

That being said, using the term “parasite” loosely in the past has led to the de-humanization of different categories of people. From past usages, it’s pretty clear that using the term to describe the pre-born will naturally lead to the same dehumanizing result.

Peace,
Robert