Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Actually, the newborn argument was from me... And it wasn't that newborns should be killed, but that they could be killed as easily as an unborn child, have no more memories than them and can't survive on their own (unless they get taken care of by another, usually adult, person).

 

Also, an embryo - even if it's yours - isn't "your DNA", it has its very own and very unique set of DNA that nobody else has (unless there's an identical twin around).

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, olympe said:

Actually, the newborn argument was from me... And it wasn't that newborns should be killed, but that they could be killed as easily as an unborn child, have no more memories than them and can't survive on their own (unless they get taken care of by another, usually adult, person).

 

Also, an embryo - even if it's yours - isn't "your DNA", it has its very own and very unique set of DNA that nobody else has (unless there's an identical twin around).

 

ACTUALLY given the fact that we share - as I recall - 50% of our DNA with a banana, yes it is my DNA as well as being its own - no-one but me could have produced it. That's how they track relatives on genealogy websites - by DNA sampling. That's what they use for paternity tests, too.

 

But Laryal did bring up the "why not kill all newborns if we care so little thing" - your post about it at least made sense as part of a discussion, however much I disagreed.

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

Two things (for me) - the first is that I do not want to be worrying that my DNA may be being brought up in horrible circumstances, or that the child might want to seek me out later. Both options would upset me.  It's not the being found out - I wouldn't be at all ashamed - it's the possibility of being expected to be a part of that child's life that would bother me.

Secondly - and sadly also importantly - in the UK at least, there have been cases where a child given up for adoption has sought out its birth parents and demanded a measure of financial support (and in the case of fathers of abandoned children who were brought up in care, the courts have occasionally even ordered them to pay support. Probably this has happened to mothers too, though I don't know of any cases.) It would not surprise me at all if this became an issue.

 

 

Laryal - if you don't understand simple biology, there is no point trying to discuss anything with you. How could the cells possibly be animal cells ? That IS silly - silly or TOTALLY ignorant of scientific biological fact.

 

As for the party animal thing - you have also been shown many examples in this  thread where the party animal thing had nothing to do with it. People who used contraception correctly and it failed. People who were raped, coerced. People with tokophobia - something that doesn't always show up until the woman is actually pregnant (may even have wanted to be) and realises she simply cannot go through with it. And what about the women with DEAD FOETUSES in their wombs who have been denied abortions - one even died as a direct result. The women carrying babies who will certainly die minutes after birth.

 

And yes, sure - and you too were a parasite when your mother was carrying you. Presumably a welcome one. So  was I for my mother. So what. No-one is suggesting that our mothers made the wrong choice to keep us - though there are people on this forum who do actually wish their mothers HAD aborted them. How on earth you extrapolate from that that the fact that we now feed on animals and fish has anything to do with this makes no sense at all. Yes - we kill those to eat. Are you vegan by the way ?  I know that morally one should be, though I haven't  managed yet, much to the distress of my vegan grandson - but yes, we humans do see animals as valid food sources. What exactly does that have to do with abortion ?

 

The embryo/clump cells/even the foetus does not have a choice - they haven't the knowledge or ability to make choices, so that falls.

I was never a parasite i was a human nothing else an i can see that you guys want to make this exuss so you can feel good anbout killing another human. know what funny an this is true facts if you do not want the bady you call it a fetus a buch of cells a parasite. But if you want it awwwwwwww i am having a baby aaaaawwww..So The excusses you are giving are all in your heads trying to say abportion is ok that killing is ok of unwanted babies. an you guys say sex education why it will only make more unwanted killed babies really. an youi never never call me a parasite even if you are referring to my  mom's having me understood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cecona said:

Laryal you are not making any kind of valid argument, only repeating fallacies like if it’s okay to kill a potential human it’s okay to kill an already established person with memories and experiences. Or that newborns should be killed because they might die later in life like as an adult. As well as trying to shock us with images. And I agree you are being very silly asking if it’s animal dna, especially after a couple of us gave you answers to your questions. That simply shows you will not accept any answer from us “heartless and inhumane” people. Can you please try to show us that you are here to have an actual discussion, rather than to argue and get angry?

  awww anouther person who want an excuss to kill unborn. wants to call it any thing else but a baby cells parasite fetus. like i said with fuzzbucket all you are doing is making excuss so you can kill those babies an like the link said it shocks you don;t it you have no words to say those images are nothing more than babies.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, olympe said:

Actually, the newborn argument was from me... And it wasn't that newborns should be killed, but that they could be killed as easily as an unborn child, have no more memories than them and can't survive on their own (unless they get taken care of by another, usually adult, person).

 

Also, an embryo - even if it's yours - isn't "your DNA", it has its very own and very unique set of DNA that nobody else has (unless there's an identical twin around).

Why not look up arbortions an accualy see what happens to those babies that the women get rid of  just like my links i have there is nothing easy about it they suction them out.They rip apart their bodies they even put a salt salution  into the baby all these are  all to kill the unwanted baby.This i guess is why abortion is so cruel in ways no human should go thru an it is inhumane. 

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

If you think people want to kill babies, Laryal, then you're not part of the actual discussion. That has nothing to do with the reasons for why people seek out abortions. No one wants to kill babies. 

 

A woman exercising bodily autonomy is not a crime, nor morally reprehensible. A parasite/fetus/baby-- WHATEVER you call it, at whatever stage-- has no rights to a woman's body. No one does but her. So if she doesn't want it there, it does not have the right to stay there. No one, at whatever stage in their life, has a right to anyone else's body for whatever reason. Regardless if the potential life or whatever needs that to survive. 

 

Also, personal attacks and rudeness will not be tolerated. If you cannot discuss this in a calm, civil manner, you will be asked to leave the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post

ok but i guess she attacking me is ok calling me a parasite  was ok  but telling her not to call me that is wrong so yea i am out so i want all those who want to quout me to stop an i will not come in this chat no more.

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

No one was attacking you. The term "parasite" is not being used as an insult-- the negative connotation you have for that really needs to be divorced from the actual meaning of the word if we're going to continue this discussion. It has not ever in this thread been used as a way to demonize anyone or call them less than, but to explain the relationship between an embryo/fetus that takes nutrients from a host's body. It's fine if you don't want to be called that word, but you cannot keep going after people and telling them they're essentially murderers or that they want to kill babies. We can have a perfectly civil conversation without that. 

Share this post


Link to post

Question then i am no longer coming back ok if they are not killing babies then what are they killing non human?or those paristes they call the or a clump of cells not human is it an animal? If it is an animal then how can a human carry a non human then?Just a though ok think on it my last post on here.

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Laryal said:
Quote

Laryal, you have been getting answers for several years now. Please read what we tell you. LINK to old post

 

i can tell you this is the same post  from here  that link is from this chat no other post so your wrong.

 

I gave you a link to a post from 2015. How am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

OK Laryal - since you are not up to engage in any actual discussion I am putting your posts on ignore so that I can follow the actual discussions in this thread.

 

But note that I said I too was a parasite in my mother's womb. And my daughters were in mine. No insult - a biological fact.

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Sex education that doesnt focus only on abstinence is likelier to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and even if it doesnt it will ensure that people arent ignorant of their own bodies which is a good thing anyway.

 

Im not going to try and change antichoice minds right now. The only thing i am intetested in hearing from antichoicers is what they are doing to reduce unwanted pregnancies before they even happen, and what they plan on doing for them post-birth. And i mean realistic options - it iswell known that abstinence is a farce, and while it does work for some, it is not a reality for the majority. In my view, you cannot be pro-life if you are not willing to support them post-birth to ensure what you save gets to live a quality life.

Share this post


Link to post

The thing where we differ seems to be the definition of when a human life starts. To me, that's somewhere between fertilization of an egg and actual implantation (because, well, if the blastocyst doesn't implant, it won't develop). Which is one of several reasons why I would never use an IUD. (The others would be the increase in pain and bleeding during the period, and the problem of what happens when the IUD fails.) I'd be hard-pressed to use the morning after pill, too.

 

Neither of these things mean that I wouldn't have an abortion if the circumstances were just bad enough for me to actually want one badly enough to actually go through with what I consider ending a human life. However, reasons like "I'm not ready" or "I don't want a child right now" wouldn't really work for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, olympe said:

Actually, the newborn argument was from me... And it wasn't that newborns should be killed, but that they could be killed as easily as an unborn child, have no more memories than them and can't survive on their own (unless they get taken care of by another, usually adult, person).

 

Also, an embryo - even if it's yours - isn't "your DNA", it has its very own and very unique set of DNA that nobody else has (unless there's an identical twin around).

Newborns have bodily autonomy since they aren't physically attached inside someone else's body. Hence why there's a (huge) difference between abortion and infenticide.

Edited by CatCreature
grammar I can't

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, CatCreature said:

Newborns have bodily autonomy since they aren't physically attached inside someone else's body. Hence why there a (huge) difference between abortion and infenticide.

And that's where I don't agree with you - or the majority of people here. Because to me, "bodily autonomy" or the ability to breathe on one's own doesn't mark the moment a life begins. Which is also the reason why I have trouble accepting that most people speaking up here are against using a (still hypothetical) artificial womb to raise an aborted fetus or even embryo. Because, while I agree that you should have full autonomy of your own body, you shouldn't have a say in someone else's body.

Share this post


Link to post

Our definition very much does differ, olympe. I cannot see a blastocyte as human - nor indeed an embryo.

 

But "I don't want a child right now" is not a bad reason not to go through with an unwelcome pregnancy. If care services were properly organised, there would even be no shortage of babies for adoption. And an accidental pregnancy is not a crime - sure, people who just carry on shagging at random and terminating willy nilly shouldn't be doing so (though that level of responsibility doesn't suggest the acts of a suitable parent)  but even one instance of unprotected sex shouldn't mean a woman has to carry the result to term - never mind women who took every precaution. A lot of this, of course, is what each individual would do. I know one of my daughters - when asked about a friend of hers who was pregnant at 16 and was considering a termination, could only see it as "well, I wouldn't, but if she wants to that's her business." Out of the mouths of babes...

Share this post


Link to post

That does raise a few points for me that I'm not entirely certain about re: artificial wombs. I am of the thought process that viable babies should be delivered and relinquished to the state if able to survive outside the mother's body-- to me, at that point, that is considered a baby (i.e., that "potential" life has now a solid stake as a person. Before this point, there is too much potential within the development of the fetus for me to consider it having reached the landmark of "person" yet). At fertility clinics, those people who go through IVF typically have fertilized embryos still left over once they've become pregnant-- and these can be donated as per the parents' wishes. My own moms had embryos donated to them when they tried to get pregnant. If they don't decide to go through with donation, I believe the embryos are discarded. Are these considered human life, then? Should those people who go through fertility treatments be forced to donate their remaining embryos, or Gods forbid, have them implanted to attempt pregnancy for all embryos? I can't get on board with that, it just seems so ethically...wrong. But if artificial wombs became available for such embryos, would the parents be forced to allow each one to develop? There are a lot of embryos typically yielded by these treatments-- that means, a lot of babies suddenly coming into the world, when there are already so many not being cared for. Would the parents then have to decide to take all of their children if they are forced to be grown, or abandon them? As someone who will be going through such treatments in a few years so I can have a baby, this potential is actually quite frightening. I don't want more than one or two children; but what if, through my treatments, I end up producing several embryos? Five, ten, or more? That's a hell of a lot more children than I could ever be responsible for. But would I also be okay letting those children into the world without me? I... don't know. I don't know that I could. As embryos they aren't children to me-- they're just embryos. Just fertilized eggs. But if the future warrants that all fertilized eggs must be placed in artificial wombs to be developed into human beings, then they would become people-- little babies, my children. And I really can't be okay with that. 

So, now that I'm done rambling about this scenario, I think I agree with Fuzz and Star; it should be the parents' choice if the evacuating embryo/fetus is allowed to be developed artificially. There's too much grey area, too much legal mess, for it to be a forced option imo. 

 

 

Edit: And I think I'm just going to put this in concise words: I care more about the mother than I do about a developing fetus. If we have to quantify our feelings for the "people" involved, that's where I stand. 

Edited by hazeh

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, hazeh said:

That does raise a few points for me that I'm not entirely certain about re: artificial wombs. I am of the thought process that viable babies should be delivered and relinquished to the state if able to survive outside the mother's body-- to me, at that point, that is considered a baby (i.e., that "potential" life has now a solid stake as a person. Before this point, there is too much potential within the development of the fetus for me to consider it having reached the landmark of "person" yet).

 

Edit: And I think I'm just going to put this in concise words: I care more about the mother than I do about a developing fetus. If we have to quantify our feelings for the "people" involved, that's where I stand. 

 

Thumbs up to all this. And especially, perhaps, the bolded bit.

Share this post


Link to post

Not going to lie, my mother would have been dead long before I was dreamed of if she had not gotten a late term abortion years before I was born. It was a wanted pregnancy but she got blood poisoning. 

 

Edit: also agreeing with Fuzz and Star - I have seen a lot of adoption and foster care horror stories.

Edited by DuskOfTheStars

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, olympe said:

And that's where I don't agree with you - or the majority of people here. Because to me, "bodily autonomy" or the ability to breathe on one's own doesn't mark the moment a life begins.

Bodily autonomy doesn't have anything to do with when life begins. It has to do with the physical body. As long as someone is using someone else's body, that someone has to give permission first, otherwise I see it as rape.

 

The development of artificial wombs is still too early. If it comes to the point where eggs can be fertilized in a petri dish and moved directly to the artificial womb, then A: those babies are very much wanted and B: noone else's body were used. If it still need someone getting impregnated, then that someone has the final say in who gets to use their womb.

 

If those artificial wombs can take care of an early abortion of an unwanted fetus, then we have the questions of who's paying for the procedure and who's going to adopt the child? (If the fetus is still viable at that point.)

Share this post


Link to post

I would have to disagree with the notion life begins between fertilization and implantation. It’s still extremely possible for it to detach or for a miscarriage to happen, likely going completely unnoticed. It’s also still possible for it to simply die with no idea what the cause is. There isn’t even the beginning of any kind of system, it’s just a cell continuously multiplying/dividing itself (I can’t remember the correct term) because that is all it’s programed to do at the point of implantation.  I can understand why you might believe it starts there, but I don’t think it’s right for something that is still microscopic and won’t be known about for several weeks to have priority over the mother.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually don't have an answer to 'when exactly does life begin'.

The baby is alive when born, obviously, and I would consider it alive for the few weeks before that when it's practically fully formed already and just growing (and moving around, kicking, etc).

I would definitely not consider it alive at least until the point where it is noticeable - around 2 months is probably when most mothers have noticed, at a guess, when those that ignored one missed period miss another. (No experience, just a guess. Please correct me if wrong!)

 

But between that, I don't have an answer. Should we consider it alive when its heart begins to beat? Or when its brain becomes fully formed? Or from when it starts to have a shape? Or a face? Or from some arbitrary number of weeks in? I used to say that it should be considered alive when the foetus could survive outside the womb, but my mother then asked, "with how much help?" because abortion is currently legal up to two weeks after the most premature we can save a baby. After a lot of thought, I still don't have an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Zeditha said:

I would definitely not consider it alive at least until the point where it is noticeable - around 2 months is probably when most mothers have noticed, at a guess, when those that ignored one missed period miss another. (No experience, just a guess. Please correct me if wrong!)

Just to chime in, a coworker had her periods up until she unexpectedly gave birth (in her friends bathtub).  She had one that was a bit late, but she chalked it up as stress from moving to a new city with a new job. Ironically, it was a day after April fools day, and I would have killed to have been a fly on the wall in the office for that phone call. She didn't want children, and had she known about earlier (as in within the first few weeks) she would have ended it. She did think long and hard about adoption, and ultimately decided to keep the child. (kinda cute (I dislike babies to a phobia level - but he was biracial and lacked the things that normally bothers me about them)) She is no longer employed with us, but last I heard he was doing good. He represents my greatest fear, suddenly having kids.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Cecona said:

I would have to disagree with the notion life begins between fertilization and implantation. It’s still extremely possible for it to detach or for a miscarriage to happen, likely going completely unnoticed. It’s also still possible for it to simply die with no idea what the cause is. There isn’t even the beginning of any kind of system, it’s just a cell continuously multiplying/dividing itself (I can’t remember the correct term) because that is all it’s programed to do at the point of implantation.  I can understand why you might believe it starts there, but I don’t think it’s right for something that is still microscopic and won’t be known about for several weeks to have priority over the mother.

Well let me ask you this are the cells that start this baby alive? Cause to my knowledge you can not bring dead things to life.So those  eggs an sperm have to be alive to start a new life.If not then no baby can be born.

 

Zeditha

I actually don't have an answer to 'when exactly does life begin'.

The baby is alive when born, obviously, and I would consider it alive for the few weeks before that when it's practically fully formed already and just growing (and moving around, kicking, etc).

I would definitely not consider it alive at least until the point where it is noticeable - around 2 months is probably when most mothers have noticed, at a guess, when those that ignored one missed period miss another. (No experience, just a guess. Please correct me if wrong!)

 

But between that, I don't have an answer. Should we consider it alive when its heart begins to beat? Or when its brain becomes fully formed? Or from when it starts to have a shape? Or a face? Or from some arbitrary number of weeks in? I used to say that it should be considered alive when the foetus could survive outside the womb, but my mother then asked, "with how much help?" because abortion is currently legal up to two weeks after the most premature we can save a baby. After a lot of thought, I still don't have an answer.

 
Accualy life has to begin at conception like i said above you can not take a dead cell an make it come to life no matter how hard you try so those two cells have to be alive to begin  with understand? 
 

Can a fetus be scientifically and biologically categorized as a parasite? If not, how does it fail to meet the criteria for one?

7 Answers

Like with any answer, the qualifier “it depends on how you define it” should be stated before hand. But it technically is a parasite, which isn’t a bad thing to say.

Parasite is often used as a derogatory term such as a lawyer might be called a “blood-sucking parasite”. In this sense, a fetus isn’t a parasite. And I can certainly see that many people don't want to consider a fetus to be a parasite, because of this reason. Putting the negative association aside, I think a fetus can be called a parasite by the fact that it has all the characteristics that all things that are considered to be parasites have in common. Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship between two organisms, wherein the parasite benefits at some expense of the host.

People have put here some reasons why they think a fetus isn’t a parasite which I don’t agree with.

A parasite doesn’t have to be from different species. There are many species that have evolved a parasitic relationships, sometimes involved in reproduction (like us). In some anglerfish species, the male permanently attaches itself onto the female, which would be eventually reduced to nothing but a sack of sperm. The male gets all its nutrients from the female, while she gets nothing back other than sperm. This is an example of “sexual parasitism”. Some might say that the mother benefits, because it is her offspring, so it is not a parasite, but that would mean the previous example is also not parasitism because the female benefits from males parasitizing them in terms of reproductive success. A clearer example of how a parasite can benefit the host in some way is how leeching is used in medicine (but be careful since that is a limited application. Some quacks promote it as a magic panacea. They don’t suck up cancer for example, sadly to say). So a parasite doesn’t necessarily mean it offers absolutely no conceivable benefit to the host. Conversely, a parasite also doesn’t have to be quite harmful the host either. In many cases, it is in the best interest for the parasite to not harm its host since that is their lifeline. Some people can be bitten by mosquitos and never notice it (no itchy bumps, wish I was immune too) and only losing a tiny bit of blood, which is expendable anyway. Another reason that was provided is that a parasite is “invasive” it comes from the outside while the fetus comes from the inside. That is technically not true, for the same reason why the internal space of the digestive tract isn’t considered the “inside of the body”, because it isn’t really separated from the outside. Basically we are a hollow tube. Other out-pockets are things like the lungs (the space inside the lungs where the air is) is also outside the body. The same thing with the space of the uterus, where embryo comes. That is still outside the body. And what about in vitro fertilization? Are they invasive and thus parasites, but not the ones that form within the uterus? Parasites also don’t have to make direct contact with the host’s living tissue. Like the weird isopod that replaces the tongues of fishes. Also the bad reasons are that the parasite stays with the host for life, not they often don’t. That the immune system will reject parasites, many parasites have methods to avoid the immune system. Sometimes the immune system isn’t even an issue with some parasites. And the worst reason I have seen is that “a fetus is a human being” which is an obvious emotional plea that relates to the negative association of the label “parasite”.

So yeah, a fetus is technically a parasite. In the same way a tomato is technically a fruit. Neither make for good conversation topics.

 

 

Steve James, I love science
Answered Apr 27, 2017 · Author has 291 answers and 193.4k answer views
 

No.

There are at least 10 scientific distinctions between a parasite and a fetus (bolds & italics added for easy perusal):

  1. A parasite makes direct contact with the host's living tissues. A fetus lives in the placenta, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (ie the cells come from the baby).
  2. When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to cut it off from other surrounding tissue. In the case of a fetus, the mother’s tissue will create a lining tissue that connects, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).
  3. Parasites usually elicit a surge of antibodies as an immunological response. With the fetus, however, a mother’s trophoblast (the shell of cells surrounding the embryo) will naturally block these antibodies so as not to reject the fetus. This reaction is only found in the embryo-mother relationship.
  4. A parasite will generally weaken the cellular reproductive capacityof the host.For a fetus, the effect is the opposite.
  5. Parasites generally stay with the host for life, a fetus leaves upon birth.
  6. Parasitical relationships are mostly harmful and unnecessary to the host, generally damaging the host in a variety of ways. A newborn (fetus post-birth) is very healthy for the mother, bringing benefits of an emotional, cognitive and chemical nature.
  7. The most obvious one, a fetus is a human being in development. It will never become anything other than human. Even a first trimester fetus will have fully developed arms, legs, ears, facial features, sex organs and a functioning heart, as well as sufficient neurological development to feel pain. A parasite is not a human and never will be.

Sources with links:

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite

General Parasitology Thomas Cheng

The Embryo As a Transplant

The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life: Scientists of Life: 9780937930021: Amazon.com: Books

Is the Fetus a Parasite?

18.4k Views · View Upvoters · View Sharers
 
Jon Pennington, Wrote Ph.D. thesis on abortion legislation
One reason most biologists wouldn't characterize a fetus as a parasite is that a parasite and its host are typically from different species. The parasite improves the prospects for the survival of its species by taking resources from its host, while at the same time reducing the prospects for the survival of the host species. Parasitism within species is a rare exception to the rule.

One exception to the rule is a species of jellyfish called narcomedusae.  Among narcomedusae, a baby jellyfish can swim inside into its own mother, while using the mother's body for shelter and nourishment. What makes the narcomedusae unusual is that a baby jellyfish can also usurp the bodies of other species of jellyfish for shelter and nourishment. In other words, narcomedusae engage in parasitic behavior against other species by doing the same things it does to its own species. Another exception is the Japanese foliage spider, which engages in matriphagy (a fancy Latin-sounding word for "eating your own mother").

Although women can die of complications from pregnancy or childbirth, the relationship between a human woman and her fetus is nowhere near comparable to narcomedusae or the Japanese foliage spider. Like most mammals, human females have a placenta that exchanges materials between the female and the fetus. The placenta suggests that, for mammals, the relationship between a mother and her fetus is symbiotic. One indicator that the placenta encourages a symbiotic relationship between the mother and the fetus is that the placenta consists of two components, (1) the chorion that develops from the fetal blastocyst and (2) the decidua that develops from the mother's uterine lining. The placenta necessary for a fetus to survive through pregnancy simply could not function if the mother's own body did not contribute material to that placenta.  In addition, a woman's body is capable of miscarrying a fetus or preventing a fetal blastocyst from implanting in the uterine wall, but in every case that leads to a live birth, the woman's body does not do this.  Instead, if the woman's body viewed the fetus as a parasite, you'd have the woman's immune system attacking the fetuses as a matter of course.

For more information, I highly recommend the blog post Why Babies Aren't Actually Parasites, which was written by a blogger who has done double duty as both a mom and as a biologist. The blog post is useful in that discusses the issue of "Is the fetus a parasite?" solely from a biological standpoint without any reference to abortion politics.
37.6k Views · View Upvoters
Brian Bergström, 100% Pro-Life from Conception until Natural Death.
Answered Nov 21 2017 · Author has 844 answers and 919.9k answer views
 
 

First let us define parasite; An organism that lives off or in another organism, obtaining nourishment and protection while offering no benefit in return. Human parasites are often harmful to the body and can cause diseases.

Science paints a vastly different picture about the actual relationship between a baby in utero and his or her mother, showing that, far from being a parasite, the unborn child can help heal his mother for the rest of her life, as beneficial cells from the child pass into the mother’s body during pregnancy.

One kind of fetal cells that enter into the mother’s body is the baby’s stem cells. Stem cells have what Pinctott calls “magical properties” in that they can “morph” into other types of cells through a process called differentiation. The baby’s fetal stem cells can actually become the mother’s own cells that make up her liver, heart, or brain.

2.4k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Cerian Owens
 
Suzanne Fortin, Pro-Life
Updated Oct 11 2014 · Author has 2.1k answers and 1.7m answer views
 
 
One characteristic of a parasite is that it's an invasive species. A fetus never "invaded" the parent. Its existence began in the uterus, so it cannot be said to have come from the outside and invaded the host.

Another important point is that the human body has an organ the function of which is to receive the fetus. The female human body is made to host the fetus by design. So the fetus isn't a parasite, it's existing in the environment it needs to exist in for the propagation of its species.
7.2k Views · View Upvoters
 
 
 
Jonathan Lane, BSc in Biology
 
 
No.
 
Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

That's from http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

In the biological sense, the "host" is gaining benefit from the "parasite" through the propagation of their genes to future generations.

Which is, pretty much, the only reason for living 🙂

If you want to get really technical, the definition also states "between species", and unless you're talking an Aliens-type pregnancy, chances are that the host and the fetus are the same species.
8k Views · View Upvoters
 
 
 
Aiden Black, A mad man, but not an irrational one. Indeed, rationality twisted me.
Answered Aug 22 2015 · Author has 406 answers and 182.7k answer views
 
 
No, since reproduction is one of main activities of animals, and they want to do it (or at least evolution wants them to). But a parasite is sth that abuses its host. Good gut microbes are not marked as parasites, if this sheds light for you.
840 Views · View Upvoters
 
 

 
 
Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Laryal said:

Well let me ask you this are the cells that start this baby alive? Cause to my knowledge you can not bring dead things to life.So those  eggs an sperm have to be alive to start a new life.If not then no baby can be born.

Of course the cells are alive, that's why they're multiplying. But that doesn't guarantee that they will turn into a person. Embryos can turn into tumors (even with a heartbeat) or calcified masses, or just simply deteriorate for no reason (it happened to my mother). Just because the cells themselves are living organic material doesn't mean they're equatable to a person. I believe that's the fundamental difference between how you see abortion and how we do-- imo, the person involved is the mother, and the embryo /fetus is only a potential. Like how a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, though it has the potential to become one if cultivated the right way. 

Edited by hazeh

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.