Can a fetus be considered as a parasite?

[Kal'Stang]

Can a fetus be considered as a parasite when speaking biologically? There are many definitions of the word "parasite" but they can be basically be put into just two catagories.

Definition A: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another organism.

Definition B: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another species.

Please note the distinction. One leaves it in general terms, the other specifies "species".

Which of the two are more accurate though? Most pro-life folks would definately go for definition B as it supports thier side. While most pro-choice folks would definately go for Definition A for the same reasoning.

So lets examine the abortion debate just a little bit.

Generally boths sides agree that a fetus has human dna. They also agree that a fetus is a living organism. And finally they both agree that a fetus is a seperate organism from its parent, able to be removed from the parent while leaving the parent whole. (weather the fetus is alive or not is irrelevant to this qualifier)

So going by these agreed upon standards we turn back to the term parasite. Definition A would include a fetus with in its definition. Definition B would not. Since it is most often pro-choice that make the arguement of a fetus being able to be considered as a parasite it leaves it up to them to prove this case. Which is actually easy.

All that it requires is that the distinction provided in defination B being proved as being not entirely accurate. How is this done? By proving that a fetus of the same species can be considered as a parasite. I give you such evidence.

Fetus in Fetu

Note in the discussion section that the term "parasitic fetus" is used.

This shows to me that Definition B is not accurate as it does not include, or has left out, the possibility of something of the same species as being parasitic.

 

[MaggieD]

Can a fetus be considered as a parasite when speaking biologically? There are many definitions of the word "parasite" but they can be basically be put into just two catagories.

Definition A: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another organism.

Definition B: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another species.

Please note the distinction. One leaves it in general terms, the other specifies "species".

Which of the two are more accurate though? Most pro-life folks would definately go for definition B as it supports thier side. While most pro-choice folks would definately go for Definition A for the same reasoning.

So lets examine the abortion debate just a little bit.

Generally boths sides agree that a fetus has human dna. They also agree that a fetus is a living organism. And finally they both agree that a fetus is a seperate organism from its parent, able to be removed from the parent while leaving the parent whole. (weather the fetus is alive or not is irrelevant to this qualifier)

So going by these agreed upon standards we turn back to the term parasite. Definition A would include a fetus with in its definition. Definition B would not. Since it is most often pro-choice that make the arguement of a fetus being able to be considered as a parasite it leaves it up to them to prove this case. Which is actually easy.

All that it requires is that the distinction provided in defination B being proved as being not entirely accurate. How is this done? By proving that a fetus of the same species can be considered as a parasite. I give you such evidence.

Fetus in Fetu

Note in the discussion section that the term "parasitic fetus" is used.

This shows to me that Definition B is not accurate as it does not include, or has left out, the possibility of something of the same species as being parasitic.

I think, in the purest sense, a fetus is indeed a parasite. However, the only people who refer to a fetus as a parasite are rabid supporters of ProChoice. Just another way to denigrate those people who would try to protect innocent human life.

 

[Kelzie]

Lot's of things fit multiple definitions. A hammer fits the definition of a hammer and a murder weapon. Now, most people don't think of a hammer as a murder weapon, but it still fits the definition. Doesn't bother me.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I think, in the purest sense, a fetus is indeed a parasite. However, the only people who refer to a fetus as a parasite are rabid supporters of ProChoice. Just another way to denigrate those people who would try to protect innocent human life.

This would not apply to me. As on a personal level I am pro-life. As such I certainly could not be termed as a "rabid supporter of pro-choice". I only support pro-choice because I do not believe that my beliefs should be forced upon others. This is why most of my abortion arguements ultimately revolve around "can be considered" or like terminology.

But I do thank you for agreeing with me...in the strictest sense.

 

[molten_dragon]

I don't believe that a fetus is a parasite, but I do believe that it shares some traits of parasites.

 

[winston53660]

Lot's of things fit multiple definitions. A hammer fits the definition of a hammer and a murder weapon. Now, most people don't think of a hammer as a murder weapon, but it still fits the definition. Doesn't bother me.

There is a TV lawyer in these parts that goes by "The Hammer".

 

[Barbbtx]

I think it would only be a parasite if it was harming the woman. There are parasitic twins though. This man had his parasitic twin in his stomach.
However, who was really the parasite? I mean, the man who lived is the one who absorbed his twin while in the womb.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/452580/parasitic_twin/

 

[AGENT J]

Can a fetus be considered as a parasite when speaking biologically? There are many definitions of the word "parasite" but they can be basically be put into just two catagories.

Definition A: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another organism.

Definition B: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another species.

Please note the distinction. One leaves it in general terms, the other specifies "species".

Which of the two are more accurate though? Most pro-life folks would definately go for definition B as it supports thier side. While most pro-choice folks would definately go for Definition A for the same reasoning.

So lets examine the abortion debate just a little bit.

Generally boths sides agree that a fetus has human dna. They also agree that a fetus is a living organism. And finally they both agree that a fetus is a seperate organism from its parent, able to be removed from the parent while leaving the parent whole. (weather the fetus is alive or not is irrelevant to this qualifier)

So going by these agreed upon standards we turn back to the term parasite. Definition A would include a fetus with in its definition. Definition B would not. Since it is most often pro-choice that make the arguement of a fetus being able to be considered as a parasite it leaves it up to them to prove this case. Which is actually easy.

All that it requires is that the distinction provided in defination B being proved as being not entirely accurate. How is this done? By proving that a fetus of the same species can be considered as a parasite. I give you such evidence.

Fetus in Fetu

Note in the discussion section that the term "parasitic fetus" is used.

This shows to me that Definition B is not accurate as it does not include, or has left out, the possibility of something of the same species as being parasitic.

Well Websters says yes a fetus could be considered a parasite, just the facts of life, seems extreme or emotionally insensitve but a fact none the less
1
: a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3
: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

:shrug:
oh well I agree with Kelzie, it doesnt bother me and many things can be defined differently

I also agree with you Kal about if I was a girl I may never get one but I could never be pompous enough to tell others what to do in that regard. None of my business.

 

[mac]

Can a fetus be considered as a parasite when speaking biologically? There are many definitions of the word "parasite" but they can be basically be put into just two catagories.

Definition A: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another organism.

Definition B: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another species.

Please note the distinction. One leaves it in general terms, the other specifies "species".

Which of the two are more accurate though? Most pro-life folks would definately go for definition B as it supports thier side. While most pro-choice folks would definately go for Definition A for the same reasoning.

So lets examine the abortion debate just a little bit.

Generally boths sides agree that a fetus has human dna. They also agree that a fetus is a living organism. And finally they both agree that a fetus is a seperate organism from its parent, able to be removed from the parent while leaving the parent whole. (weather the fetus is alive or not is irrelevant to this qualifier)

So going by these agreed upon standards we turn back to the term parasite. Definition A would include a fetus with in its definition. Definition B would not. Since it is most often pro-choice that make the arguement of a fetus being able to be considered as a parasite it leaves it up to them to prove this case. Which is actually easy.

All that it requires is that the distinction provided in defination B being proved as being not entirely accurate. How is this done? By proving that a fetus of the same species can be considered as a parasite. I give you such evidence.

Fetus in Fetu

Note in the discussion section that the term "parasitic fetus" is used.

This shows to me that Definition B is not accurate as it does not include, or has left out, the possibility of something of the same species as being parasitic.

Definition A and B say the same thing only definition A does it poorly. There is no definition C that says: An organism that lives on or in another organism of the SAME species.

No, a human fetus is not a parasite.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Definition A and B say the same thing only definition A does it poorly. There is no definition C that says: An organism that lives on or in another organism of the SAME species.

No, a human fetus is not a parasite.

Did you not read my post or the link I gave? You are of course free to not read them. But don't blame me if you continue with your false asserstions when it has been proven that you are incorrect.

FYI there is no definiton C because it would be inaccurate as there are other species of parasites.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I think it would only be a parasite if it was harming the woman. There are parasitic twins though. This man had his parasitic twin in his stomach.
However, who was really the parasite? I mean, the man who lived is the one who absorbed his twin while in the womb.

Parasitic Twin - Video

It would harm the woman once it got too big.

 

[AGENT J]

Definition A and B say the same thing only definition A does it poorly. There is no definition C that says: An organism that lives on or in another organism of the SAME species.

No, a human fetus is not a parasite.

according to websters species doesnt matter, just saying
yes a fetus COULD be classified as a parasite, I dont "view" it that way but t doesnt change the fact
its just a word, no biggie, your views nor mine change because of it

 

[Kal'Stang]

according to websters species doesnt matter, just saying
yes a fetus COULD be classified as a parasite, I dont "view" it that way but t doesnt change the fact
its just a word, no biggie, your views nor mine change because of it

Unfortenately for many pro-lifers (not all) it is a biggie because if this is accepted then the pro-choice folks have another valid argument in thier arsenal. One that could ultimately be the difference maker in a court of law.

 

[AGENT J]

Unfortenately for many pro-lifers (not all) it is a biggie because if this is accepted then the pro-choice folks have another valid argument in thier arsenal. One that could ultimately be the difference maker in a court of law.

well definition wise there is no debate, a fetus can be classified as a parasite, at least according to websters
but I get what you are saying about another valid argument, emotionally for both sides I guess it could be a big deal, guess Im just in that not all category because I dont care and cant be convinced its my business in this case

 

[Demon of Light]

Can a fetus be considered as a parasite when speaking biologically? There are many definitions of the word "parasite" but they can be basically be put into just two catagories.

Definition A: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another organism.

Definition B: An organism that lives and feeds in or on another species.

Please note the distinction. One leaves it in general terms, the other specifies "species".

Which of the two are more accurate though? Most pro-life folks would definately go for definition B as it supports thier side. While most pro-choice folks would definately go for Definition A for the same reasoning.

So lets examine the abortion debate just a little bit.

Generally boths sides agree that a fetus has human dna. They also agree that a fetus is a living organism. And finally they both agree that a fetus is a seperate organism from its parent, able to be removed from the parent while leaving the parent whole. (weather the fetus is alive or not is irrelevant to this qualifier)

So going by these agreed upon standards we turn back to the term parasite. Definition A would include a fetus with in its definition. Definition B would not. Since it is most often pro-choice that make the arguement of a fetus being able to be considered as a parasite it leaves it up to them to prove this case. Which is actually easy.

All that it requires is that the distinction provided in defination B being proved as being not entirely accurate. How is this done? By proving that a fetus of the same species can be considered as a parasite. I give you such evidence.

Fetus in Fetu

Note in the discussion section that the term "parasitic fetus" is used.

This shows to me that Definition B is not accurate as it does not include, or has left out, the possibility of something of the same species as being parasitic.

A parasite refers to an organism that is meant to always live by feeding off an organism without that organism knowing and where no benefit is conferred upon the host. When you are talking about a fetus the benefit is in continuing the genetic line of the species and it is a temporary arrangement with the developing human eventually getting its own food. However, if we are going to play this word game I could easily use those definitions to declare newborns parasites when they are being breastfed.

 

[Tucker Case]

A parasite refers to an organism that is meant to always live by feeding off an organism without that organism knowing and where no benefit is conferred upon the host. When you are talking about a fetus the benefit is in continuing the genetic line of the species and it is a temporary arrangement with the developing human eventually getting its own food. However, if we are going to play this word game I could easily use those definitions to declare newborns parasites when they are being breastfed.

Agreed.

I bolded the section on benefits conferred upon the host because, in a strictly biological sense, a fetus is beneficial to the individual. The individual exists for the purpose of replication, and the fetus represents fulfillment of that purpose.

The individual desires of the individual should not be a factor in a scientific description of benefit. For example, a person can desire that all of the bacteria found in their intestinal tract die off, but that would not make those bacteria parasitic.

 

[mac]

according to websters species doesnt matter, just saying
yes a fetus COULD be classified as a parasite, I dont "view" it that way but t doesnt change the fact
its just a word, no biggie, your views nor mine change because of it

No, Websters just failed to properly describe the definition so that people that do not have even the most basic knowledge of biology can understand it.

 

[mac]

Did you not read my post or the link I gave? You are of course free to not read them. But don't blame me if you continue with your false asserstions when it has been proven that you are incorrect.

FYI there is no definiton C because it would be inaccurate as there are other species of parasites.

The distinction is that the parasite and the host are of separate species, not that there is no more than one species of parasite. Good lord man, are you intentionally being obtuse?

Let's just address the logic.

Since in all journals you have definitions worded either of the two ways you described in your op, but no definition in any publication saying that the parasite and the host are of the same species, what does simple deduction give you? Have you ever done research of any kind?

You are equivocating definitions in order to dehumanize the fetus. The definition of parasite does not fit the human fetus. You are, quite simply, wrong. The good news (for me) is that those of you on the choice side that continue to try to use this ridiculous analogy look absolutely stupid.

 

[prometeus]

Unfortenately for many pro-lifers (not all) it is a biggie because if this is accepted then the pro-choice folks have another valid argument in thier arsenal. One that could ultimately be the difference maker in a court of law.

The argument is that the fetus IS parasitic and that is undeniable. The validity of the argument rest on HOW the fetus behaves, again indisputable, not on how some may wish to call or classify it.
Of course those who oppose abortion do not like this because when all is said it becomes apparent that the fetus' existence is at the expense of the woman carrying it and forcing the to continue to do so is enslavement.

 

[prometeus]

The individual exists for the purpose of replication

Really? BY that logic we should be able, it should be our duty to exterminate all who can not replicate as they are only using resources.

 

[Tucker Case]

Really? BY that logic we should be able, it should be our duty to exterminate all who can not replicate as they are only using resources.

That's just silly. First, I was not using logic to present an argument. I was merely pointing out the biological purpose of an individuals existence, which is not really up for debate. Biologically speaking, organisms exist to create more organisms.

Second, I made no moral claims. Thus, claiming that my statemtns lead to the conclusion that we "should" do something is totally absurd, and it would indicate that either I failed to convey or you failed to understand the perspective I was coming from.

 

[prometeus]

That's just silly. First, I was not using logic to present an argument. I was merely pointing out the biological purpose of an individuals existence, which is not really up for debate. Biologically speaking, organisms exist to create more organisms.

This being the abortion forum and opposition to it being the based, at least in part if not entirely, on the value of human life, your point reduced humanity to nothing more than simple biological existence, say like that of an amoeba. Perhaps if you would have included some line of reasoning the glaring pointlessness of your statement would have been somewhat diminished.

 

[Demon of Light]

This being the abortion forum and opposition to it being the based, at least in part if not entirely, on the value of human life, your point reduced humanity to nothing more than simple biological existence, say like that of an amoeba. Perhaps if you would have included some line of reasoning the glaring pointlessness of your statement would have been somewhat diminished.

The thread is about whether a fetus can be considered a parasite so the fact the relationship between the mother and a fetus is one of biological imperative for their shared species is certainly relevant to that question. I could also note that the fetus is naturally accommodated by the body of the mother. Parasites intrude in places where they are not welcome by the host's body and exploit the host's biology for its own purposes. In addition the fetus is formed in part from a piece of the mother and that cannot be said of any parasite.

 

[prometeus]

The thread is about whether a fetus can be considered a parasite so the fact the relationship between the mother and a fetus is one of biological imperative for their shared species is certainly relevant to that question. I could also note that the fetus is naturally accommodated by the body of the mother. Parasites intrude in places where they are not welcome by the host's body and exploit the host's biology for its own purposes. In addition the fetus is formed in part from a piece of the mother and that cannot be said of any parasite.

The post you quoted and responded to was in reply to a post that in essence reduced humanity to the sole biological function of reproduction. While certainly reproduction and propagation of the species is an imperative function of all life, we as humans certainly amount to a lot more. Of course that is a digression and I apologize for that. As to the OP, if you read my earlier post on the topic, you of course saw that I did not make the claim that the fetus is a parasite, so while your comment here IS correct the criticism is misplaced.

 

[Tucker Case]

This being the abortion forum and opposition to it being the based, at least in part if not entirely, on the value of human life, your point reduced humanity to nothing more than simple biological existence, say like that of an amoeba. Perhaps if you would have included some line of reasoning the glaring pointlessness of your statement would have been somewhat diminished.

Regardless of the location of th ethread, the question asked was a biological one, not a moral one.

If you somehow think that answering the question in a valid and accurate fashion is "pointless", that your problem, not mine.