A fair poll on the question of fetus as parasite.

Lycaenidae · Oct 20, 2005

A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

This is definitely not true of parasitoid wasps and flies.

Niemand3D · Oct 20, 2005

Since we're not discussing unborn children anymore... we're all parasites of this earth.

levi501 · Oct 20, 2005

Niemand3D said:
Since we're not discussing unborn children anymore... we're all parasites of this earth.

whoa dude, that's deep...

uh wait, the earth isn't an organism... nevermind.

Caphi · Oct 20, 2005

Being a placental mammal is not the same as parasitism. A parasite is a creature which benefits itself at the expense of another species. The child is not a species separate from the mother. Nor is it wholly at the mother's expense. I don't know if this is some sort of emotional ploy from PC, or a strawman from PL, but this it tells me: vitriolic partisanship in America is becoming ridiculous. What happened to intelligent solutions?

butterfoot · Oct 20, 2005

charityagape said:
Aside from the whole question of abortion, do any reputable scientists consider the fetus of any species to be a parasite?

Example. Mistletoe growing on a pecan tree is a parasite. A pecan growning on a pecan tree is not a parasite.

Good example of a parasite. Notice though that in no way shape or form did the mistletoe come into existence due to something the pecan tree did.

However the fetus was begun because two human beings engaged in an activity that specifically caused the fetus to exists. Without that activity the fetus would not exist.

-cw

Caphi · Oct 20, 2005

cameronw said:
Good example of a parasite. Notice though that in no way shape or form did the mistletoe come into existence due to something the pecan tree did.

However the fetus was begun because two human beings engaged in an activity that specifically caused the fetus to exists. Without that activity the fetus would not exist.

-cw

Your conclusion I agree with, but not with your reasoning. Let's say that Henry was given an influenza vaccine. The virus reactivated once in his bloodstream, and poor Henry came down with the flu. Now, Henry is being parasitized by an infection of influenza viruses owing to something he deliberately did, viz. allowing a culture of influenza to be injected into his bloodstream. What do you call that?

charityagape · Oct 20, 2005

Claiming a fetus is a parasite would mean the way mammals propagate their species is to infect themselves with parasites made of a combination of their own genetic material, which is obviously of the same species. Only mammals. A chicken embryo for example develops outside the body so wouldn't be a parasite.

A parasite is one species using another species to survive. Gestation, pregnancy, fetii (?) this is one species method of propagation for that same species' survival.

butterfoot · Oct 20, 2005

Caphi said:
Your conclusion I agree with, but not with your reasoning. Let's say that Henry was given an influenza vaccine. The virus reactivated once in his bloodstream, and poor Henry came down with the flu. Now, Henry is being parasitized by an infection of influenza viruses owing to something he deliberately did, viz. allowing a culture of influenza to be injected into his bloodstream. What do you call that?

While your question is off due to the flu vaccine is flu virus that is already dead so it couldn't reactivate. I do see where you are going.

Let me put it to you this way. You walked down the street and passed by someone who had the flu and contracted it. Would that be a parrasite?

Last time I checked you can't just walk down the street or just be and become pregnant without intervention.

-cw

Lycaenidae · Oct 20, 2005

charityagape said:
Claiming a fetus is a parasite would mean the way mammals propagate their species is to infect themselves with parasites made of a combination of their own genetic material, which is obviously of the same species. Only mammals. A chicken embryo for example develops outside the body so wouldn't be a parasite.

A parasite is one species using another species to survive. Gestation, pregnancy, fetii (?) this is one species method of propagation for that same species' survival.

Don't forget the viviparous beetles whose eggs develop in the haemocoel.

Lycaenidae · Oct 20, 2005

charityagape said:
Claiming a fetus is a parasite would mean the way mammals propagate their species is to infect themselves with parasites made of a combination of their own genetic material, which is obviously of the same species. Only mammals. A chicken embryo for example develops outside the body so wouldn't be a parasite.

A parasite is one species using another species to survive. Gestation, pregnancy, fetii (?) this is one species method of propagation for that same species' survival.

Are you sure it always has to be of another species?

Caphi · Oct 20, 2005

cameronw said:
While your question is off due to the flu vaccine is flu virus that is already dead so it couldn't reactivate. I do see where you are going.

Let me put it to you this way. You walked down the street and passed by someone who had the flu and contracted it. Would that be a parrasite?

Last time I checked you can't just walk down the street or just be and become pregnant without intervention.

-cw

Don't change the subject. Being vaccinated is every bit as much a decision as having sex. And vaccine bacteria and viruses have been known to reactivate and infect the host. Naturally, more care is taken to prevent this in, say, MMR shots.

But back to the question. Does a parasite stop becoming a parasite if the host made some sort of decision which directly led to the parasitism? If it's another species, and it's hurting you to feed it, then it's a parasite even if you ate the things yourself. A baby, on the other hand, is not necessarily parasitizing, since the parents both biologically and consciously expend themselves for the child's welfare, even notwithstanding the species bit.

levi501 · Oct 20, 2005

Lycaenidae said:
Are you sure it always has to be of another species?

exactly... time to repost what gladiatrix posted because people are simply ignoring her points.

charityagape · Oct 20, 2005

I know she said that they don't have to be of a different species. But by the strict and not general definition, they do have to be of a different species.

She even posted this herself.

Under a strict definition of symbiosis, the parasite and its host typically belong to different species. However, under a general definition of a parasite

Click to expand...

Under a general definition of parasite many, many things could be termed parasite, especially in a social sense. However, even in this general definition parasitism is defined as two kinds.

Main Entry: par·a·site

Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
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

Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism

Pronunciation: 'par-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

The answer to your question is YES...
This is a common misconception that a parasite MUST be of a different species and always harms the host. The relationship between an embryo/fetus and the mother is a parasitic one and is so described in the medical literature. I will frame my arguments against an antichoice site which disputes this connection (uses charityagape's argument).

A common misconception? In what way. By a strict definition a fetus is not a parasite.
These are parasites:
Leech, Tick, Flea, Tapeworm, Liver Fluke, Malaria, Lamprey Eel.

A fetus may in some limited ways resemble the actions of a parasite does not mean it has a strictly parasitic relationship with the mother. And some medical literature refers to the fetus as a parasite. A lot of medical literature disagrees.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/thomas_johnson_--_unborn_not_a_parasite.htmAs for the a very general definition of parasite; many, many living things could fit that definition. Including my neighbors 33 yo son who lives in her basement.

Is he a tapeworm? Scientifically speaking, no. In my personal opinion, yes.

levi501 · Oct 20, 2005

charityagape said:
But by the strict and not general definition, they do have to be of a different species.

So you admit that by a general definition of parasite a fetus fits the description?

charityagape · Oct 20, 2005

levi501 said:
So you admit that by a general definition of parasite a fetus fits the description?

Read post above. Yes by the most general of definitions. But the poll isn't asking could you fit fetus into the most general of definitions.

And when it comes to that general definition it really becomes more about how you feel about something.

Examples; Gestating female is to fetus what host is to parasite what mother is to baby. All depending on your personal view.

But outside of your personal view and by a strict defintion a fetus is not a parasite in the same way a tapeworm is a parasite.

levi501 · Oct 20, 2005

charityagape said:
Read post above. Yes by the most general of definitions. But the poll isn't asking could you fit fetus into the most general of definitions.

And when it comes to that general definition it really becomes more about how you feel about something.

Examples; Gestating female is to fetus what host is to parasite what mother is to baby. All depending on your personal view.

Meaning this characterization is accurate unless out of emotional appeal it offends you and if this is the case you can deny it based on your "personal view" however this won't be based on anything factual.

Are serious about "personal view"? When did personal views start coming into play in scientific terminology?

charityagape said:
But outside of your personal view and by a strict defintion a fetus is not a parasite in the same way a tapeworm is a parasite.

So you keep asserting, but you have yet to address the points Gladiatrix made. Not only that but you still offer no logical reason as to what purpose excluding a fetus from the term parasite accomplishes seeing as it does have a parasitic-like relationship with the mother. If you reverse the question to those who consider it a parasite, it's simple. It's termed a parasite to accurately describe the biological relationship it has to the mother. Is their any reason to not call it a parasite other then you like to view it as a cute cuddley baby?

levi501 · Oct 20, 2005

charityagape said:
Under a general definition of parasite many, many things could be termed parasite, especially in a social sense. However, even in this general definition parasitism is defined as two kinds.

Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
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

Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: 'par-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

I've bolded and highlighted what I don't understand... what does "Kind" mean?
I've never heard it used in biology. It certainly doesn't mean different species. Until there's a deffinition of "kind" theres no reason to assume that it excludes the same species. Kind is some vague grouping that could mean the born(mother) versus the unborn(fetus) in it's categorizing.

charityagape · Oct 20, 2005

levi501 said:
I've bolded and highlighted what I don't understand... what does "Kind" mean?
I've never heard it used in biology. It certainly doesn't mean different species. Until there's a deffinition of "kind" theres no reason to assume that it excludes the same species. Kind is some vague grouping that could mean the born(mother) versus the unborn(fetus) in it's categorizing.

Two or more kinds

I'm not quite sure what you don't understand.

Main Entry: 1kind

Pronunciation: 'kInd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English kinde, from Old English cynd; akin to Old English cynn kin
1 a archaic : [size=-1]NATURE[/size] b archaic : [size=-1]FAMILY[/size], [size=-1]LINEAGE[/size]
2 archaic : [size=-1]MANNER[/size]
3 : fundamental nature or quality : [size=-1]ESSENCE[/size]
4 a : a group united by common traits or interests : [size=-1]CATEGORY[/size] b : a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>
5 a : goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b : the equivalent of what has been offered or received

Two or more kinds. In order to be two or more groups of things they must be two or more separate things.

A fetus and the person carrying it are not two or more kinds. It excludes them being of the same species because its two or more.

charityagape · Oct 20, 2005

It's termed a parasite to accurately describe the biological relationship it has to the mother. Is their any reason to not call it a parasite other then you like to view it as a cute cuddley baby?

Actually the accurate biological description is fetus. That conveys everything needed without any emotional context. Is there any reason to not call it a fetus other than you like to view it as a harmful parasite?

charityagape · Oct 20, 2005

It's termed a parasite to accurately describe the biological relationship it has to the mother.

Also, the biological relationship is quite accurately described with terms like gestation and pregnancy.

A fair poll on the question of fetus as parasite.

Scientifically speaking, is a fetus a parasite?

Scientifically and not emotionally speaking a fetus is a parasite.

Scientifically and not emotionally speaking a fetus is not a parasite.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Formerly Known as cameronw

Well-Known Member

Blue Chicken Gives You Horns

Formerly Known as cameronw

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Blue Chicken Gives You Horns

Senior Veteran

Blue Chicken Gives You Horns

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Blue Chicken Gives You Horns

Blue Chicken Gives You Horns

Blue Chicken Gives You Horns

Similar threads