Foetus = Parasite

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Incocknito, Mar 16, 2011.

  1. Incocknito

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,567
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    La monde
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huston/060803

    What do you think?

    I would agree that from a biological point of view that a human foetus (important) is simply a parasite and basically a collection of cells.

    The author of the article and opponent to this view makes a very emotive argument but it is fundamentally (because he is a fundamentalist?) flawed. The original article (by Krouse) relates only to the foetus.

    The opponent almost always talks about a born child/baby. Most likely it is intentional as people who don't pay attention might make the mistake of getting caught up in his emotive language while missing the point that he himself has "missed the point" and is not comparing apples to apples or foetuses to foetuses.

    This is the essence of the Krouse ('Foetus = Parasite') argument:

    "Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy."

    And then the reply from his fervent opponent:

    If "freeloading" is to be a criterion to exclude the status of "life" then perhaps we might "abort" everyone on welfare and anyone who is not wholly subsisting by his own efforts? Perhaps the aged and infirm should be eliminated in an "abortion."

    Last time I checked, the definition of parasite was not "being on welfare". A parasite is a biological phenomenon and not an economic or social entity and to make it such would be to take it out of context.

    Just curious as to what other members think.
     
    #1 Incocknito, Mar 16, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2011
  2. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Well, this promises to shed much light on difficult questions. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Incocknito

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,567
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    La monde
    I linked the original article if you care to read. That might be difficult though, with your eyes rolled that far up.
     
  4. lucidbass

    lucidbass New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. It's not a parasite.

    Firstly, every multi-cellular organism is just 'a collection of cells'. Everything from an embryo to a full grown human.

    Secondly, a parasite is an organism that benefits at the expense of the host. While the mother is burdened physically, she's actually in the process of keeping her genes alive until after she's dead. So to say she isn't benefiting from the fetus is pretty silly, seeing as her fetus ensures the survival of her species (which is all natural selection revolves around), whereas a parasite only ensures the survival of its own species.
     
  5. Incocknito

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,567
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    La monde
    Correct me if I am wrong but her genes would only be kept alive if her foetus was born and grew into an adult which then had offspring?

    In that case it is the child and not the foetus that benefits her. The foteus gives nothing to the mother; it only takes what it needs to survive.
     
  6. superbot

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Great Britain
    That would like the same as dismissing humans as JUST being water and carbon.Besides,how does the foetus equate with being a parasite? that's a nonsense!
     
  7. lucidbass

    lucidbass New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh sure. I was merely voicing my opinion on how void it is to reduce any multicellular life form to being 'merely a wad of cells'. An embryo, a human, anything is a collection of cells.The writer of the article said that 'a collection of cells can't breathe, walk on land, etc', which is pretty much untrue. We've involved to be a wad of cells that can do exactly that.

    We are but a collection of cells. A marvelous collection of cells that work together in the most seemless and cordinated fashion, but a lump of cells nonetheless.

    No fetus = no offspring = no child. I thought I posted that the fetus is 'part of the process that ensures the survival of the species', which it is.

    And that's what the fetus gives to its mother. A chance for her genes to get into the next generation. An organism does its job by breeding. A fetus is essential in that process. Humans would be nothing without their offspring and fetuses are an essential part of that. They're offspring in their second earliest stage of existence.

    Obviously, 'ensure' is a big word. A meteor might strike tomorrow annihilating all life on Earth. But it's the best parents' shot at doing the thing they're alive for in the first place.

    And if the woman feels burdened by it and does not see the positive aspects of having that fetus in her body, then it still doesn't change anything. 'Good' and 'bad' are human constructs, not natural ones. So she may dislike the fact that she's carrying an unborn baby in her womb, but that does not make it a parasite.
     
  8. Magnus_Phallus

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    674
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    294
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Global
    Verified:
    Photo
    while cells divide all over the world, here we are debating semantics.

    I see the mother foetus relationship more like a symbiosis;
    after all the completion of the foetus, the final outcome,
    does not result in the necessary demise of the mother.

    As for "freeloading", even newborns would qualify as freeloaders;
    chances of surviving are slim to none for a newborn by itself.
    Even once the "physical connection" has ended
    they are completely dependant and thats not
    a uniquely "socio economic" dependance.

    Moreover, parasites disrupt and pervert
    the biological functions of their hosts.
    pregnancy is a natural biological function,
    not a perversion of any other thing.

    Im sure I could go on and say more
    and/or better things but Im lazy :biggrin1:
     
  9. helgaleena

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,663
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Wisconsin USA
Draft saved Draft deleted