CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is it incorrect to call a fetus a parasite
This has poped up a lot in debates about aboriton, so i figured it deserved a debate of it's own. I was going to make this a challenge debate against cuaroc, but i figured plenty of other people might have some insightful opinions of their own.
Wow, your inability to propose a real argument is astounding. The fact that this is nothing, but a thoughtless remark and has 8 points of support shows that maybe the other people who agree with your side are just as ignorant as you are.
Wow, your inability to propose a real argument is astounding. The fact that this is nothing, but a thoughtless remark and has 8 points of support shows that maybe the other people who agree with your side are just as ignorant as you are.
There are a number of reasons why I believe it is both innarurate and innaproirite to call a fetus a parasite.
1)Part of the definition for a parasite is an organism that interferes with the survival of it's host. To survive, an organism has to use the basic life processes. Among these life processes there is the act of reproduction which allows the hosts genetic material to be recreated to support the continuation of it's species. Since pregnancy is part of the act of reproduction, the fetus is product of the mother's life processes, and thus is not interfering with her survival.
2) A fetus is a stage of life, not a unique species on it's own. Human fetus' are still part of the human species. Part of the biological desription of a fetus is that it is a different species than the host, which is not the case here.
Some Parasites dont interfere with the survival of it's host some have been known to help also being pregnant can interfere with the survival of the pregnant woman
When a organism bonds with a host and does no signifigant harm, it is an example of Commensalism, not parasitism.
How is not able to escape danger faster not harmful? WHat about the increased food the mother must eat when resources could be low? Not to mention Morning sickness.
And those down sides such as morning sickness and increased food intake are not that signifgant.
The only thing that short of stumped me was the escape from danger though, but i do not believe that is enough to apply the classification of parasite to a fetus.
I think you are trying too hard to stretch the definition to fit fetuses because it would support your own feelings about fetuses and abortion, but it is wrong to try to dis contort scientific terms in such a manner.
That depends on the level it reaches. Typically it is limited to nausia or ocastionall vomiting.
Morning Sickness it believed to be an evolved trait that rids the mother of the toxins she ingests while pregnant. The levels of intensity it reaches are based on what the mother ingests, so with a planned diet it could be lowered to a more manageable level
2) A fetus is a stage of life, not a unique species on it's own. Human fetus' are still part of the human species. Part of the biological desription of a fetus is that it is a different species than the host, which is not the case here.
The definition of parasite I have says nothing about a different species
I gave a link to a site that describes the various types of parasites that did not includes fetuses. His response was that they forgot to add it to their lists.
a fetus is not a parasite because in parasitism, the parasite benefits and the host suffers. A healthy pregnancy doesn't harm the mother, so i would say no. Also, fetuses, no matter how early in development, are human.
yes!!! it is wrong! a fetus is a human being undergoing development. and no one has any right to call a fetus a parasite even if it is unwanted by the parents.
Parasitic relationships are heterospecific, invasive and immunologically detrimental; fetal-maternal relationships are not. Parasitism also usually isn't the exclusive avenue of propagation for the host species. Calling a fetus a parasite is a rhetorical flourish generally made by those emphatically unconcerned with science.
You can bend any definition to fit your arguments, but it falls apart under logic. A fetus isn't a parasite because a) it is not a foreign body, b) it is the same species as the mother, c) the body (in females) is built to nurture the fetus, not just any biological organism, and d) it is the result of reproduction, a continuation of the species.
To call a fetus a 'parasite' is to display your willingness to suspend belief in order to advocate murder. But I suppose that's a debate for another time.
I think we shouldn't call them parasites. The mom would definitely be able to benefit from the baby one day. Also, some fetuses give mothers happiness.. Therefore, its not only parasitism..
duh, were you were a parasite at one point? no, but in order for human life to live, we have to give birth so a fetus is just a baby host, not a parasite, the mother required a fetus to be born so that you could be born and yeah...
so if you eat a living thing iits automaticaaly a parasite bassically is what your saying cause you just siad any living thing that lives inside of something is a parasite so lets say I ate a live scorpion is that a parasite?,no its not and dont give me any of that but it benefits you bS, I already have a comeback for that one.
A baby is considered a stage in life that is more advanced than foetus, you don't call a baby a foetus, do you? And sometimes it's just an embryo they're aborting.
but you didnt say unwanted child you just said child and if a mother didnt want a child theres always adoption (even though adoption has nothing to do with this debate still theres always that option for a mother who does not want a child to put it up for adoption) and if what you say is true and you saya n unwanted child is a parasite than what about a mother who accually wants the child then is that child a parasite.
2)The second definition calls a parasite a person, so is it really worth calling a fetus a parasite when it would support the whole "abortion is murder" thing?
Anyone with even cursory knowledge of parasitology knows that parasites are not the same species as their host. Using the term parasite in it's derogatory sense while referring to a fetus is just idiotic. Calling a fetus a parasite is a rhetorical technique used to make a woman more comfortable with aborting a fetus even when there is no legitimate medical reason to do so.
Why do you suppose it is that Homo Sapien isn't listed here
That is the point i have been trying to make the whole time. I am surprised how many people are trying so hard to bend the definition of parasite to suit their own opinions even when it clearly isn't true.
I know right? They simply MUST be aware that in the technical sense of what a parasite is, they are flat out wrong, yet they nevertheless STRONGLY insist on exhibiting their own ill-bred nature by referring to a fetus pejoratively as a parasite. It's surprising to me too. If parents raise a child who ends up being a blood sucking parasite who leaches off of others without contributing, it would be appropriate to describe them as such; instead, the same imbeciles that support calling fetuses parasites, describe those who really deserve to be labeled parasites as successes but I digress.
But the foetus complies with the dictionary definition, even if it isn't a species of parasite. Whatever you say, it is wrong and twisted to expect a woman to risk her life for an unwanted child... do you know that 800 women die from childbirth every day? My cousin-in-law's mother died from childbirth. That is why I feel strongly about idiots that believe that a cluster of cells has more right to live than an adult/teenage woman who was attacked or made a mistake.
There are 3 defintions of fetues, the first one is the biological defintion, which the guy above just refuted,
the second it a person who mulches off of others, but this is description is for a PERSON, so unless you want to support the abortion is murder argument, i would stop pushing this description
finally parasite also refers to some greece term, but i doubt that has any appliablilty to it.
This debate is not about abortion, it is about correct terminaology. Abortions are sometimes nessicary, but that does not mean we should go so far as to call fetues parasites to de-humanize the issue.
They do give something in return... they give the mother the opportunity to feel motherly love which is a love that is uncomparible to any other love. They give the mother joy especially if she has been wanting this baby/fetus.
Now, whether the mother accepts these gifts or not is another question.
But there are a couple crucial points in the definition of parasite that are not applicable to fetuses. In the biological term it says that a parasite does not provide any benifit to the host, but a fetus is part of reproduction, which is one of the basic life processes. It enables both parents genetic traits to be continues throughout the generations, which allows surivail of the fittest, which in turn allows evolution.
I see what some people are trying to say, how pregnancy can be difficult on the mother, but calling a fetus a parasite it way off. It seems to me to be a way to de-humanize the fetus. I am not trying to make a statement about whether or not abortion should be illegal, but i strongly believe that no matter the circumstances, abortions are a tragic event that should not be dismissed in such a manner by calling fetuses parasites.
A symbiotic relationship is where both the host and the organism benefit from the relationship. A parasitic relationship is where only one benefits while the other suffers to some extent. The mother is the host and suffers during pregnancy, therefore, the baby can be accurately labeled a parasite.
Maybe the dictionaries don't specify this, but I think the parasite has to be a different species than the host. It needs to be taking advantage of the host to perpetuate its own DNA. Since a mother and baby share half their DNA, I don't think the baby could be considered a parasite.
Now, in the case of a host mother carrying someone else's child, then the term might apply, but I think this would be more accurately termed a symbiotic relationship since the host mother is probably either being paid, or planning on raising the kid herself, or gaining some other benefit. If she were forced to carry the child against her will, then maybe you could call the baby a parasite.
A baby still takes nutrients from it's mother after it is born through nursing. That does not mean a infant is a parasite nor does it prove that a fetus is either.
1. an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it
2. a person who habitually lives at the expense of others; sponger
3. (formerly) a sycophant
[C16: via Latin from Greek parasitos one who lives at another's expense, from para- 1 + sitos grain]
I will respond to each of those definitions induvidually
1) A fetus is the product of the mother's (and father's) life process of reproduction that allows the survival of the specis, thus "bennifiting the host"
2)A fetus is not a cogniative person, as argued by many on the pro-choice side of the argument, so i don't think this defination fits.
3)I am assuming by sycophant, you are referring to a "self-seeking flatterer" (whatever that means, i just looked it up).
No. A parasite is defined as something that only takes and doesn't give anything useful. One could argue that babies do give something useful to their hosts. May not be physical but mothers love their children. Even in the womb. So there is plenty of girly lovey crap babies do for pregnant woman.
While pregnancy isn't an parasitic interaction between different species, a fetus, until born, must live as a parasite, needing food, water, heat and habitat from its host.
