Fetus and the Mother: Parisitic Relationship?

[Lost In Translation]

My biology teacher was talking about this issue in a lecture once. He argued that the Fetus was a parasite to the mother, because the fetus absorbs many nutrients from the mother, and ultimately takes a lot from the mother (her health, her body, her youthfulness, etc. etc.).

What do you think?

[Cymru]

I disagree there.
A parasite has to harm the host. The fetus itself doesnt harm the mother, the mother is hurt indirectly from the fetus i.e the actual childbirth

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I disagree there.
A parasite has to harm the host.

Wrong. Biologically speaking, a parasite does not have to cause damage in order to be a parasite - it can simply aborb nutrients that would have otherwise have been used by the host organism, without giving any kind of benefit to the host in return.

Notwithstanding allowing reproduction, that's what a foetus (spell the goddamn word right!) does.


The fetus itself doesnt harm the mother, the mother is hurt indirectly from the fetus i.e the actual childbirthThe foetus does harm the mother by accelerating the aging process and inducing hormonal changes that damage the mother in certain ways. The fact that physical damage occurs during childbirth is a direct rather than indirect cause of harm - the foetus needs to be born in order to continue it's lifecycle and reproduce.

In fact, were it not for a bit of fancy-pants genetic tinkering by evolution, the foetus would be rejected and attacked just like a normal parasite.

In effect, we were all once parasites upon our mothers. This parasitism is tolerated both socially and biologically because it enables the continuation of the species.

[Demogorgon]

My biology teacher was talking about this issue in a lecture once. He argued that the Fetus was a parasite to the mother, because the fetus absorbs many nutrients from the mother, and ultimately takes a lot from the mother (her health, her body, her youthfulness, etc. etc.).

What do you think?

It is biological junk because a parasite has to belong to a different species.

As for the relationship being parasitic, it can't be if you want to use biological definitions because it is by its nature symbiotic. Passing on of genetic material is considered to be the main biological drive of an organism and so consequently anything that contributes to that (like a fetus) is biologically advantageous.

When people talk about fetuses being parasites, apart from trying to be offensive for the sake of it, they are talking about it being parasitic in the social sense, that is, broadly speaking, it negatively impacting upon the mothers ability to exercise her preferences. That could be correct in certain circumstances, but parasite is still very much the wrong word to use, because it does not go for all cases.

After all in the socio-economic context pregnancy can be seen in certain cases to carry considerable advantage. In some third world countries, the more children one has, the more bread-winners the family has and the more people to support the parents in old age. That is why third world countries often have a high birth rate.

Anyway if we were to look at it purely from a biological perspective, then no, it is not a parasitic relationship for the reasons I have outlined. There is a thread kicking about somewhere where Chimx posted a good explanation his mother (a biologist) gave him, explaining in more detail why it is impossible to call a fetus a parasite.

You see people here trying to call fetuses parasites quite frequently because they insist, for whatever reason, on bringing the abortion debate back to morality and hence have to try and impose morality upon biology, but it doesn't work that way.

Besides, trying to discuss abortion in terms of biology is stupid and in terms of morality tricky. It is far and away best discussed in a legal context.

[disobey]

The theory does apply to Boris Johnson in the womb only.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is biological junk because a parasite has to belong to a different species.

Sez you! If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


As for the relationship being parasitic, it can't be if you want to use biological definitions because it is by its nature symbiotic. Passing on of genetic material is considered to be the main biological drive of an organism and so consequently anything that contributes to that (like a fetus) is biologically advantageous.The fact that foetuses enable reproduction is of benefit to the species as a whole, not to the mother concerned.

Thus, the mother-foetus relationship is parasitical on the level of the organism, but on the level of the species it is symbiotic.


When people talk about fetuses being parasites, apart from trying to be offensive for the sake of it, they are talking about it being parasitic in the social sense, that is, broadly speaking, it negatively impacting upon the mothers ability to exercise her preferences. That could be correct in certain circumstances, but parasite is still very much the wrong word to use, because it does not go for all cases.Who's trying to be offensive for the sake of it? "parasitical" is the perfect description for the mother-foetus relationship at the level of the organism. If facts offend you, that's just too bad.


After all in the socio-economic context pregnancy can be seen in certain cases to carry considerable advantage. In some third world countries, the more children one has, the more bread-winners the family has and the more people to support the parents in old age. That is why third world countries often have a high birth rate.In this case, the foetus and the infant that grows from it is simply another mouth to feed... Which is why such countries tend to have the practice of leaving "sickly" infants to die - and sickly they become, with the subsequent neglect. In any case, they benefit from having many children who reach working age (whatever that happens to be), not having many foetuses.


Anyway if we were to look at it purely from a biological perspective, then no, it is not a parasitic relationship for the reasons I have outlined. There is a thread kicking about somewhere where Chimx posted a good explanation his mother (a biologist) gave him, explaining in more detail why it is impossible to call a fetus a parasite.The foetus takes nutrients and gives nothing back. Having children is beneficial, especially if they survive to reproduce. But a foetus that dies before birth has given the mother no benefit whatsoever.


You see people here trying to call fetuses parasites quite frequently because they insist, for whatever reason, on bringing the abortion debate back to morality and hence have to try and impose morality upon biology, but it doesn't work that way.You're the one trying to impose morality on biology. You think describing foetuses as parasites is offensive. An opinion I do not share.


Besides, trying to discuss abortion in terms of biology is stupid and in terms of morality tricky. It is far and away best discussed in a legal context.This was a strictly biological discussion in the first place - it was you who dragged in all that morality and legality crap. Note that the first post in this thread said nothing about the legality or morality of abortion, only it's biological effects.

[Demogorgon]

Sez you! If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...From dictionary.com

"1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." (my emphasis)


The fact that foetuses enable reproduction is of benefit to the species as a whole, not to the mother concerned.

Thus, the mother-foetus relationship is parasitical on the level of the organism, but on the level of the species it is symbiotic.Nope. It is biologically advantageous to the individual that their genetic material be passed on. For instance if my genetic material is directly passed on it is advantageous to me, but has no bearing on you. This has no bearing on whether or not it is good to have children. It can, of course, be socially or personally disadvantageous. But in biological terms it is advantageous.


Who's trying to be offensive for the sake of it? "parasitical" is the perfect description for the mother-foetus relationship at the level of the organism. If facts offend you, that's just too bad.Apparently it is you who has trouble with facts, not me. A mother-fetus relationship is, by definition, symbiotic, therefore referring to it as parasitic is factually wrong and serves no purpose other than to try and offend people. Those who use such an argument, certainly are not remotely interested in abortion rights, simply in coming across as edgy.


In this case, the foetus and the infant that grows from it is simply another mouth to feed... Which is why such countries tend to have the practice of leaving "sickly" infants to die - and sickly they become, with the subsequent neglect. In any case, they benefit from having many children who reach working age (whatever that happens to be), not having many foetuses.Where do you think the children come from? They aren't brought by the stork and nor do they fall off of the gooseberry bush.


The foetus takes nutrients and gives nothing back. Having children is beneficial, especially if they survive to reproduce. But a foetus that dies before birth has given the mother no benefit whatsoever.If it dies before birth it obviously won't have given benefit, but that is immaterial. The fact is that the return for carrying a fetus succesfully is, in biological terms, significant.


You're the one trying to impose morality on biology. You think describing foetuses as parasites is offensive. An opinion I do not share.
Saying that something is offensive is not a moral judgement. I don't think it is morally wrong to be crass, just incredibly childish. The morality comes into play when you try and impose morality (in this case "abortion is good") onto biology. The result is, as we see in this thread, utter gobbledygook.

This was a strictly biological discussion in the first place - it was you who dragged in all that morality and legality crap. Note that the first post in this thread said nothing about the legality or morality of abortion, only it's biological effects.
It was never a strictly biological discussion. If that is all it were, then all it would have involved was a quick note of the simple fact that a symbiotic relationship between two beings of the same species cannot be parasitic by definition, and it would have been left at that.

However it was a cack-handed attempt to justify abortion, and therefore it is important to point out how to argue the subject properly, and the proper way to do so is legally.

[Luís Henrique]

When people talk about fetuses being parasites, apart from trying to be offensive for the sake of it,

They aren't trying to be offensive for the sake of it. They are trying to ensure that no sane working class person agrees with them, thus proving their underlying "line": that workers are inherently counterrevolutionary, and can only be saved by some outlandish petty-bourgeois "vanguard".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

In this case, the foetus and the infant that grows from it is simply another mouth to feed... Which is why such countries tend to have the practice of leaving "sickly" infants to die - and sickly they become, with the subsequent neglect. In any case, they benefit from having many children who reach working age (whatever that happens to be), not having many foetuses.

Let's make a deal? You and your technocratic ilk have already made clear that the fate of the two thirds of mankind who live in the third world does not concern you. Coherently, you ignore everything about those people and the places where they live. For the sake of coherence also, can you please stop making broad, sweeping, and incredibly ignorant assertions about us?

Thanks.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

From dictionary.com

"1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." (my emphasis)

Because as we all know, Dictionary.com is a widely-respected biological authority. :rolleyes:


Nope. It is biologically advantageous to the individual that their genetic material be passed on. For instance if my genetic material is directly passed on it is advantageous to me, but has no bearing on you. This has no bearing on whether or not it is good to have children. It can, of course, be socially or personally disadvantageous. But in biological terms it is advantageous.And precisely what advantage does it provide to the individual concerned? Especially if the foetus ends up stillborn or the resulting child dies before having children of their own?


Apparently it is you who has trouble with facts, not me. A mother-fetus relationship is, by definition, symbiotic, therefore referring to it as parasitic is factually wrong and serves no purpose other than to try and offend people. Those who use such an argument, certainly are not remotely interested in abortion rights, simply in coming across as edgy.Why the fuck do you keep bringing up abortion rights? I'm not trying to justify abortion by saying that the foetus is parasitical - mine is a strictly biological argument. There are already good reasons for women to have abortion rights.

Perhaps that wasn't clear enough in my last post.


If it dies before birth it obviously won't have given benefit, but that is immaterial. The fact is that the return for carrying a fetus succesfully is, in biological terms, significant.Which means that the status of the foetus as a symbiote is conditional. Pretty rare feature for a symbiote, apparently.


Saying that something is offensive is not a moral judgement. I don't think it is morally wrong to be crass, just incredibly childish. The morality comes into play when you try and impose morality (in this case "abortion is good") onto biology. The result is, as we see in this thread, utter gobbledygook.Where did I say that abortion was necessarily a good or bad thing, you lying sack of shit?


It was never a strictly biological discussion. If that is all it were, then all it would have involved was a quick note of the simple fact that a symbiotic relationship between two beings of the same species cannot be parasitic by definition, and it would have been left at that.Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of a "debate" wherein I disagreed with you and argued from there.


However it was a cack-handed attempt to justify abortion, and therefore it is important to point out how to argue the subject properly, and the proper way to do so is legally.It was never an attempt to justify abortion, you dishonest shitstain. You're reading things into my statements that aren't there.


They aren't trying to be offensive for the sake of it. They are trying to ensure that no sane working class person agrees with them, thus proving their underlying "line": that workers are inherently counterrevolutionary, and can only be saved by some outlandish petty-bourgeois "vanguard".

Hey, that was funny, maybe you should consider a career as a comedian.


Let's make a deal? You and your technocratic ilk have already made clear that the fate of the two thirds of mankind who live in the third world does not concern you. Coherently, you ignore everything about those people and the places where they live. For the sake of coherence also, can you please stop making broad, sweeping, and incredibly ignorant assertions about us?

Thanks.Sure, provided you remove that enormous stick from your ass. It looks pretty painful, it's making me wince!

[Luís Henrique]

Sure, provided you remove that enormous stick from your ass. It looks pretty painful, it's making me wince!

Fucking first world supremacist arsehole.

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

Because as we all know, Dictionary.com is a widely-respected biological authority. :rolleyes:Okay then, find me a reputable biological source telling us that a parasite can belong to the same species as its host.


And precisely what advantage does it provide to the individual concerned? Especially if the foetus ends up stillborn or the resulting child dies before having children of their own?Passing on one's genetic material is the essential biological drive for living creatures, hence it is biologically advantageous to have children and to try and ensure they survive. This is not difficult. Given you claim you want to have a biological debate, it would help if you at least knew some simple biology


Why the fuck do you keep bringing up abortion rights? I'm not trying to justify abortion by saying that the foetus is parasitical - mine is a strictly biological argument. There are already good reasons for women to have abortion rights.Yes, it is about abortion and always has been. There is no legitimate biological basis for calling a fetus a parasite. It has always been about trying to justify abortion, or to be more accurate, about trying to take a shocking approach to the abortion debate. Devrim gave a pretty good summation of this a while ago when he identified the organisations who come up with this crap and the way that they work.


Which means that the status of the foetus as a symbiote is conditional. Pretty rare feature for a symbiote, apparently.This is just stupid. Any symbiote can die before it has the chance to deliver benefit. That does not change the fact that it is still a symbiotic relationship. Incidentally, the fetus isn't a symbiote per se, as it is from the same species and partially from the mother's genetic material, however if you want to phrase it in hese terms, symbiotic is the most accurate.


Where did I say that abortion was necessarily a good or bad thing, you lying sack of shit?Well if you haven't declared your undying love for abortion, you had better do it now. The thought police are watching...


Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of a "debate" wherein I disagreed with you and argued from there.This is only a debate insofar as an argument over whether the moon is made of cheese is a debate or not.


It was never an attempt to justify abortion, you dishonest shitstain. You're reading things into my statements that aren't there.

I am quite sure I could fling vitriol back at you, but it is probably unwise to get into a shit flinging competition with a monkey. How about we just say you are better at childish insults and I am better at knowing facts?

[Luís Henrique]

Because the brutal truth is thatEuropeans were building cities and roadways while Chinese were making paper and building guns while West Africans were swinging from trees.


In this case, the foetus and the infant that grows from it is simply another mouth to feed... Which is why such countries tend to have the practice of leaving "sickly" infants to die

Somebody please explain in what are those statements exactly different?

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

Somebody please explain in what are those statements exactly different?

Luís HenriqueDamn, I missed the implication of that statement first time I read it. I have said it before, but this board does have a real problem regarding certain members' inability to see the world out of North American/Western European tunnel vision.

I'll say this, I have known parents here in the West who have lost children and I have known a few people from the "third world" who have lost children too. The grief was exactly the same. The notion that Third World parents would let their kids die is utterly appalling. Only the very worst people (or those with severe mental disorders) would ever do that. To claim it is standard in the third world is pretty horrible.

[Luís Henrique]

I have said it before, but this board does have a real problem regarding certain members' inability to see the world out of North American/Western European tunnel vision.

Which is a quite mild way to put it. Some members here are actively prejudiced against third worlders - borderline racists, I would say.

http://www.duvekot.ca/eliane/archives/savages.jpg

Me have asked if bwana TAT want a banana... to bwana NoXion me might ask if a banana up his arse he want, just to his posting stile match.

Luís Henrique

[KC]

Passing on one's genetic material is the essential biological drive for living creatures

Why? I have no desire to pass on my genetic material, and last time I checked I'm a living creature.

[black magick hustla]

Why? I have no desire to pass on my genetic material, and last time I checked I'm a living creature.


Well yeah, but in terms of natural selection and other animals, passing your genetic material is the THING. So the featus can't have a parasitic relationship to the host.

[Demogorgon]

Why? I have no desire to pass on my genetic material, and last time I checked I'm a living creature.

You might very well not, you are after all more than simply your individual genes. But it is to the advantage of your genes to replicate themselves. Your personal desires are a different issue.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Somebody please explain in what are those statements exactly different?

Luís Henrique

Well, one is a direct comparison of Africans with monkeys, while the other is, if your reaction is any indication, a mistaken statement. I did not mean to imply that Third World mothers are more callous than their First World cousins, only that wretched conditions drive humans to do wretched things.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, one is a direct comparison of Africans with monkeys, while the other is, if your reaction is any indication, a mistaken statement.

Oh, good.

You have the habit of making unsupportable statements about places and people you know nothing about. I asked you to stop, and you responded in your habitual insulting manner. Glad to see you are starting to consider the possibility that your uninformed statements are as wrong as they are uninformed.

If you don't want to make "mistaken" statements, you should consider the idea of *gasp* actually learning something about the subject of your statements, before spouting them.

And, oh, before I forget. "Mistaken" sweeping statements made without actual knowledge of what they refer to are what we call, in good English, prejudiced statements.


I did not mean to imply that Third World mothers are more callous than their First World cousins,

You may have not meant to "imply" that - just like Awful Reality may have not meant to "imply" that Africans are monkeys. But, meaning or not meaning, it was what you did.


only that wretched conditions drive humans to do wretched things.

They do. Only not necessarily the wretched things that come to your wretched imagination.

Luís Henrique