Does science considere fetus parasitic?

H

Hermes

New Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
We made a debate about if fetus can be considered parasitic in another thread. Unfortunately it started to became off topic after a while because of the subject of that very thread. I am moving discussion here and hoping to have a scientific debate on this subject , away from all political motivations.

My statement is: a fetus can not be classified as a parasitic.

Why? Do not fetus and parasites share some common characteristics? Yes they both are carried by the host, they both are fed by the host and list can go on.. But sharing some characteristics do not make a fetus parasitic. Important point here is the scientific method of classification. In science you can not make conclusions depending on comparing characteristics. In order to identify something , first you need to establish the criteria. Necessity of establishing a criteria while studying in science is a practice that comes from the time of Aristotle.

Followings are few examples showing the necessity of criteria:

For example Human is a creature that lives , feeds and dies on the ground, but not all creatures who lives and feeds and dies on the ground are human. Even though they do share this common characteristics (list can get a lot longer) the criteria of being a human is different.

Another example is Virus and Bacteria. They both make people sick, we use medicine against both of them and they both are microscopic creatures. Unfortunately making such a list does not make a Virus a Bacteria, nor gives Virus a bacterial nature. Once again whats important is the criteria. In this case viruses are not considered living organisms while bacterias are. Despite all their similarities bacterias are one celled living organisms while viruses are a section of RNA or DNA covered by a protein shell.

This is a scientific method of studying subjects. If we didnt follow it, we could have mixed every subject with another only looking at their common characteristics and create false conclusions.

So what is the criteria while identifying what is parasitic?

Parasite refers to an alien organism living its life in the expense of its host. All parasites in nature use a species of different kind as host. There are no examples of a parasite living in its own kind in the nature. Fetus is an offspring. There is no scientific classification puts offsprings in parasitic catagory. The things your own body create can not be considered parasitic. Once again if we look at all the examples in the nature we will not see any organism that creates its own parasite.

So if anybody wants to falsify my statement, I will ask following question. If they can be provided and proved that either there is a scientific consensus naming fetus as such or the criteria I presented is wrong and there indeed are other parasitic organisms that lives in its own kind or is created by it, I will accept my statement being wrong:

  • Can you provide any scientific source* that names fetus as a parasite, or parasitic, or having parasitic nature.
  • Can you provide any source that shows there is one more parasite in the nature that is being hosted by its own kind.
  • Can you provide any source that shows there are instances in the nature host creates its own parasite.

Thank you for reading this lengthly post
Hermes.

* Scientific source is referred as coming from any academical source which is created for scientific reasons and not related to political debates.
 
Your claim has already been refuted and can be read in the other thread.

[Mod's Edit - Unnecessary comment removed thus provoking.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:wave: Hermes,

I agree with everythin' you said. I don't believe that a fetus is really a parasite. Parasite is somethin' else and it has nothin' to do with a fetus inside a mother/woman's womb. A fetus is NOT an ecosystem type of thing. Parasite is.

And, yes a fetus is an offspring that was made by a woman and man who joined lovemakin'. Their sperm and egg joined together to form a fetus. It formed a flesh and everythin' by both mommy and daddy.

Virus is another thing and it is a parasite. It can not be a fetus because, it don't fit its profile for parasite. Soo... I mostly agree with your statement. ;)
 
Incorrect assumptions. Also, an embryo is not always created through the act of sexual intercourse. In the case of IVF, it is created in a laboratory and implanted in a female to gestate. Can't get more scientific than that. If a fetus were not dependent upon a female's body for survival, as in parasitic, they would continue to grow the embryo in the laboratory, and not need the female.

Viruses are not dependent upon a host for survival. They can be replicated in a laboratory, and exist as air borne entities. Bacteria is not dependent upon a host for survival. They exist everywhere. They do not exist only inside a human body. A fetus does not exist anywhere except in a human body. Therefore, it is most definatley a parasite on the female. It cannot exist without the total support of her body.
 
It amazes me that anyone would think a living breathing human being was a parasite. It reminds me of how the Nazi's dehumanized people before they killed them.

Of course a baby is not a parasite. Who ever heard of such nonsense.
 
dreama said:
It amazes me that anyone would think a living breathing human being was a parasite. It reminds me of how the Nazi's dehumanized people before they killed them.

Of course a baby is not a parasite. Who ever heard of such nonsense.
Click to expand...

No one said a living breathing human being was a parasite. They said a fetus was parasitic in nature. Since a fetus does not breathe, and is only alive by virtue of the connection to the mother via the umbilical cord, it does not fit the criteria you yourself have assigned.
 
Back
Top