Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Soviets? Really? Look who's babbling now.

Here's the truth. You can frame all kinds of things in all kinds of ways according to pure science. For example, a human being is nothing more than a collection of matter and energy. But when you begin using these scientific conclusions to rationalize nefarious intentions such as denying people the basic right to life, this is the very definition of sociopathy.

I'm sure you would agree that if someone believed that cutting your head off is no different than cutting down a tree, you would probably recognize this as sociopathic behavior. Although from a purely scientific standpoint, it's essentially the same act. It's technically just severing organic matter.

LOL! I'm going to ignore the irony that you're cussing at me while accusing me of being offended.

You clearly didn't understand what I said. Read my response to mamooth.

 

Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

This is the type of thing an auditor would ask.

"They were the observers of the operations of the universe, it's clerks, it's auditors. They saw to it that things spun and rocks fell.
And they believed that for a thing to exist it had to have a position it time and space. Humanity had arrived as a nasty shock. Humanity practically was things that didn't have position in time and space, such as imagination, pity, hope, history and belief. Take all those things away and all you had was an ape that fell out of trees a lot." - Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

In short it's a good question if you just don't understand what it means to be human.

 

I would assume that parasitic organism would eventually lead to the death of the host.

I would not associate the natural progression of human reproduction as a parasitic process.

 

gawd, do you blame everything science-related that you disapprove of, can't prove wrong and butthurt about on liberal-socialists? because that seems to be cases with almost everyone on thread.

that's called a cop-out, can you prove the science wrong?


THIS IS THE LAW:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent.

wow, another cop-out... you must be a christian-creationist.

the only person kidding here, is yourself with your cop-outs, WE can see the truth crystal clear.

can you prove this wrong:

THE BIBLE:
the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god's name, in his holly temple!
the 1984 NIV footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what "to thy thigh to rot, they belly to swell" meant: numbers 5:21 "or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness" to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.


'Ephraim, as I saw Tyre, is planted in a pleasant place; but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer." Give them, O LORD -- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts...Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit; yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.'

HOSEA 9-16

the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
3.3.3 ATHEISM: A HISTORY OF GOD (Part 1)

http://www.evilbible.com/god
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

no, that's hoc ergo propter hoc.
a woman consented to a man's penis, not to a zygote.
just because you got in a car =/= you consented to a car accident, and the ills the come with it.

troll harder.

rape?

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

 

i do, it makes that with the evidence presented.

the zygote did invade and hijack a woman's body.

 

Fleas and Ticks lead to death? Pubic Lice?

 

I suppose I had certain types of worms and vines in mind,

 

par·a·site   [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
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.

sorry, nice try.

 

Is that the mother or the baby?

Many women fit the criteria of parasitic!

Regards
Highlander

 

Now this is just my own opinion here, but someone who thinks a baby is a "parasite" obviously has an elevator that doesn't quite make it to the top floor, if you get my meaning.

That said however, science says NO it is not a "parasite".

 

So where was the zygote before this invasion?

 

Words are such slippery things. To say a parasite has to be another species just because of a silly definition is like saying, a fetus isn't a baby because...oh wait

 

Human parasite in the womb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin

Not a parasite on the mother, but on it's twin.

 

parasites do not grow to live independently. This is not true of the temporary guest/host relationship of the fetus. This criteria is only satisfied by a different species in the guest/host relationship.

 

"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"

In most cases a fetus is a welcomed entity (if not, there is always abortion)
and the host benefits from a fetus in many many ways. What an absurd thread.

 

If it was, what difference would it make? The question has always been, is it a human life.

Most Obama voters are parasites, yet they are also human.

 

Not if you believe in endosymbiosis, first proposed by Linn Margulis (Carl Sagan's EX) The problem we have is semantics, we look at parasites as a bad thing. Being a parasite doesn't exclude the child for the species, simply explains the process of development and further explains evolution. Of course, understanding this concept is beyond the GOP mental grasp, I only write this to inform the more evolved beings of this forum.

 

That is NOT science. it is simply morally disgusting! parasites are harmful to a population. Fetuses are CRUCIAL to a population. Thats like saying a puppy isnt a dog, its a puppy. Would you consider that a true statement? No. its a baby. and murdering it because you dont want to claim responsibility and you want to cop-out is murder. if it killed itself it wouldnt be murder. but something has to go in and kill it. that is pretty much the definition of murder. argument is over.

 

do you expect the ribosome to get up and live independently of the cell at some point ?

do we ?

 

You mean like re-defining a fetus as being a parasite?

 

Whether it is or is not a parasite does not reflect on the question of whether or not it is a human being.

A zygote - the single cell after conception - is not a human being/Homo sapien.

Biologists are in almost universal agreement and most, if not the majority, of other experts from other relevent fields such as philosophy and bioethics are also in agreement.

A human cell is not a human being.

 

the classification homo sapien describes what the organism will be when fully developed.

in your dreams.

unless it is the zygote.

 

The fact that the DNA within the zygote is in the process of creating a human does not make the zygote a Homo sapien. None of the cells that will be part of the eventual human have even been created yet. This does not happen until after the blastocyst has been created - a hollow sphere of cells inside of which the embryoblast will form. It is the embryoblast that are the cells that will form the human.

Being the a step in the development of a human does not make that step a human being. Sperm and egg are also steps and they are not humans either.

This is from a Ph.D Biology Prof at the U of Miami. Dana Krempels

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm



Indeed it appears, at least from this Biologists opinion, that no one in the field of Biology even seriously considers the idea that a zygote is a Homo sapien.
I have many other examples like this and have yet to see anything from a respected Biologist who claims otherwise.

Even if we leave Biology out of the equation - which is silly - but lets do that to try and come up with some substantiation for your position.

If we consider experts from other relevent fields such as Philosophy and Bioethics as to whether or not the zygote has a soul or if "potential" has value we will find that there is massive disagreement.

"We dont know" then is the best possible position that can be gotten to with respect to the zygote/personhood question. Note that these arguments based on things other than whether or not the zygote is a human being.

 

well yes, in fact it does.

uh, ......no they're not. They have half the chromosomes and can never develop into the adult human form.

you are paying too much for your education. Demand a refund.

 

This is absolutely disgusting to me. This is a disgusting argument. If you are a scientist you should be shunned from the community for thinking a freaking human baby should be classified as a PARASITE thats harmful to humans. Ok lets get rid of all babies and see how well humans do. I bet we don't do so well