Fetus not parasite BY DEFINITION

[Stringaling]

By definition a fetus is NOT a parasite;

Definition 1:
Merriam-Webster: Parasite
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.
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b...ary&va=parasite

Definition 2:
Merriam-Webster: Parasitism
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
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=parasitism



By DEFINITION a human fetus cannot be a parasite on a human mother. The parasite must be a different kind of creature than the host. Also a host cannot create its own parasite, as that would be fruitless and serve no purpose. The offspring of any mammel cannot possibly be defined as a parasite, as shown above in the given definitions. The parasite must be different than the host. A human fetus is human, contains human DNA, and is not a separate being that invaded a host to maintain life or further its own life. The human female's body functions to create the fetus. The fetus does not invade, it is made by the body of the human female.

 

[charityagape]

ABSOLUTELY excellent. Borrowing this post for my poll.

 

[Bree1]

Good point. I would also add that the fetus is not a parasite because it is precisely where it belongs at that stage of its development

 

[""]

The parasite must be different than the host. A human fetus is human, contains human DNA, and is not a separate being that invaded a host to maintain life or further its own life. The human female's body functions to create the fetus. The fetus does not invade, it is made by the body of the human female.

Very good. You have clearly won this debate. Congrats to you.

 

[Followers4christ]

100% agree with you that the unborn baby is not a parasite but a fetus.God Bless

 

[Natman]

Thank you for finding the additional definition. None of my dictionaries had the "two or more kinds" statement as part of their definition.

GOOD JOB!

Son-cerely,
Nathan Powers

 

[charityagape]

Yes, awesome.


No one disagrees?

 

[Mestemia]

<sigh>

Ever heard of "Popular Usage"?

 

[Exhausted]

Indeed. I might be pro-choice, but I won't justify it with 'parasite' junk. Thank you for being awesome.

 

[Phylogeny]

By definition a fetus is NOT a parasite;

Definition 1:
Merriam-Webster: Parasite
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.
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b...ary&va=parasite

Definition 2:
Merriam-Webster: Parasitism
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
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=parasitism



By DEFINITION a human fetus cannot be a parasite on a human mother. The parasite must be a different kind of creature than the host. Also a host cannot create its own parasite, as that would be fruitless and serve no purpose. The offspring of any mammel cannot possibly be defined as a parasite, as shown above in the given definitions. The parasite must be different than the host. A human fetus is human, contains human DNA, and is not a separate being that invaded a host to maintain life or further its own life. The human female's body functions to create the fetus. The fetus does not invade, it is made by the body of the human female.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is...? Any first year biology student could have told you the above....

 

[AtheistPerson]

A fetus may be the same organism, but it still lives within the mother. Its not the word, but the meaning you should be more concerned with...

 

[Electric Sceptic]

See the previous thread on this subject, in which it was conclusively proven that the fetus IS, indeed, a parasite. All of the points in the OP of this thread were dealt with.

However, briefly:

The parasite must be a different kind of creature than the host.

No, it mustn't. SOME definitions have this requirement; most do not. The leading OB/GYN text in the US specifically states that the fetus is a parasite.

Also a host cannot create its own parasite, as that would be fruitless and serve no purpose.

Who says? In what definition is that?

The offspring of any mammel cannot possibly be defined as a parasite, as shown above in the given definitions.

Yes, it can.

The parasite must be different than the host.

A fetus IS different to the mother.

A human fetus is human, contains human DNA, and is not a separate being that invaded a host to maintain life or further its own life.

Of course it is.

[/QUOTE]The human female's body functions to create the fetus. The fetus does not invade, it is made by the body of the human female.[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant to its being a parasite.

 

[xMinionX]

Ok...

 

[Illuminatus]

They're only parasites *after* they're born.

 

[xMinionX]

They're only parasites *after* they're born.

Yeah, no doubt.

 

[WaterGoddess]

I don't understand this "fetus is a parasite" or the "fetus isn't a parasite" stuff. If you're pro-choice, if the fetus is or is not a parasite shouldn't matter, and if you're anti-abortion it shouldn't matter if the fetus is a parasite or not. To the debate, it's something of a non-issue. Dealing with the facts, we know that the fetus is inside of the mother, it's dependant on the mother because it cannot suppliment it's own existence, and we know that to carry the fetus brings risks to the mother. That by itself should be enough to support a case for choice.

To me this argument is kind of like the people who waste their time trying to prove that the fetus is a life. If it is or not is completely irrelevant considering the above facts.

 

[Halitose]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is...? Any first year biology student could have told you the above....

And yet is still pops up in many abortion debates...

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I don't understand this "fetus is a parasite" or the "fetus isn't a parasite" stuff. If you're pro-choice, if the fetus is or is not a parasite shouldn't matter, and if you're anti-abortion it shouldn't matter if the fetus is a parasite or not. To the debate, it's something of a non-issue. Dealing with the facts, we know that the fetus is inside of the mother, it's dependant on the mother because it cannot suppliment it's own existence, and we know that to carry the fetus brings risks to the mother. That by itself should be enough to support a case for choice.

To me this argument is kind of like the people who waste their time trying to prove that the fetus is a life. If it is or not is completely irrelevant considering the above facts.

I agree. The issue of whether or not the fetus is a parasite is completely irrelevant to the notion of abortion. Yet anti-choicers keep bringing it up...I've never seen a pro-choicer bring it up.

I argue the issue not because of any particular stand on abortion (as stated, in my opinion the issue of the fetus' being a parasite is irrelevant to the abortion issue) but merely for the sake of accuracy. I tire of people with an agenda trying to slant the facts to suit their argument - and it's mostly anti-choicers who are doing so, claiming the fetus is not a parasite, because they think it somehow bolsters their argument.

 

[levi501]

"an intimate association between oganisms of two or more kinds"

Anyone want to define the term "kinds" as it refers to biology?

 

[Blackmarch]

"an intimate association between oganisms of two or more kinds"

Anyone want to define the term "kinds" as it refers to biology?

My bet would be that it's synonymous (or near synonymous) with species.