Would an unborn Fetus during Pregnancy be counted as a Parasite?

[Dave Strider]

This is an honest question that popped into my mind. It's completely reliant on its host for nourishment, it saps its host of energy, and it causes them to exhibit symptoms (cravings, stress, mood swings, etc). Not to mention, it can cause its host to die (death during Pregnancy). Would this count it as a Parasite?

[The Juggernaut]

I'm sure there are Liberals out there who think so. I don't think that a member of the same species can be a parasite, unless it is 41 and still lives in his parents' basement.

[Dave Strider]

I'm sure there are Liberals out there who think so. I don't think that a member of the same species can be a parasite, unless it is 41 and still lives in his parents' basement.

This is a genuine scientific question, not the Political Mudpit, take it somewhere else please.

[Visna]

This is an honest question that popped into my mind. It's completely reliant on its host for nourishment, it saps its host of energy, and it causes them to exhibit symptoms (cravings, stress, mood swings, etc). Not to mention, it can cause its host to die (death during Pregnancy). Would this count it as a Parasite?

No. A parasite of a different specie. It's a dependant relationship, not a parasitic one.

[Dave Strider]

No. A parasite of a different specie. It's a dependant relationship, not a parasitic one.

Thank you kindly. Just wondering.

[Lord Baal]

There are cases however where the immune system of the mother actually threats the fetus as such and destroy it.

[Ludicus]

Ask your mother, Dave. (j/k)
--
No, the hosts actively try to destroy/avoid/ or protect themselves from the parasite.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology.

Also, it´s worth the read,
parasites,pathogens, and immunity
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199206735/ch01.pdf

[removeduser_4536284751384]

For it to be a parasite, it would have to gain at the expense of its host, i.e. become more likely to reproduce at the expense of its host's ability to reproduce. That's not the case, an unborn child growing inside its mother is essential to her ability to reproduce. So it is the exact opposite of a parasite, because it benefits its host's ability to reproduce tremendously. It is its host's offspring after all. Both the parent and child's genes become much more likely to survive as a result of pregnancy. It's mutually beneficial, not parasitic.

[Lord Baal]

On a biological sense one could say it's a parasite, it feed of the host, it make changes to it's host body and it has to recur to some trickery in order to not be killed by the host immune system. However that's just how we mammals roll anyway. The only exception known is the platypus.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

On a biological sense one could say it's a parasite, it feed of the host, it make changes to it's host body and it has to recur to some trickery in order to not be killed by the host immune system. However that's just how we mammals roll anyway. The only exception known is the platypus.

Or you could reword that and say the host intentionally feeds it, changes its body to accomadate for it and does not target its immune system at the fetus...in which case it doesn't sound like a parasite.

[Humble Warrior]

`Would an unborn Fetus during Pregnancy be counted as a Parasite?`

By all that is holy, do you even need to ask that question?

It should be obvious what the answer is.

[Dave Strider]

`Would an unborn Fetus during Pregnancy be counted as a Parasite?`

By all that is holy, do you even need to ask that question?

It should be obvious what the answer is.

My greatest apologies, Omniscient One.

[Lord Baal]

Or you could reword that and say the host intentionally feeds it, changes its body to accomadate for it and does not target its immune system at the fetus...in which case it doesn't sound like a parasite.

Not willingly, at least not on a conscious level. And not the immune system either. The fetus has to do some stuff in order to the immune system not target it too.

Of course that's just the way we evolved to reproduce, and in a philosophical way we can't never tell a unborn baby a parasite, that's atrocious of course.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

[QUOTE=Lord Baal;11947997]Not willingly, at least not on a conscious level. And not the immune system either. The fetus has to do some stuff in order to the immune system not target it too./QUOTE]
Well, then you could start saying organs like the lungs have some traits of parasites, which they don't of course. People don't breathe willingly.

[Lord Baal]

Actually people do breath willingly besides unwillingly thanks to the parasympathetic system. Also, internal organs that make you stay alive are not parasites by definition under any circumstances.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Actually people do breath willingly besides unwillingly thanks to the parasympathetic system. Also, internal organs that make you stay alive are not parasites by definition under any circumstances.

But I don't understand how you can compare a fetus to parasite at all, even if you acknowledge that technically it isn't. If something contributes to a genotype's evolutionary stability, then it is not a parasite. Both a fetus and a useful bodily organ do this. Why is one at all parasitic and the other isn't?

[Lord Baal]

But I don't understand how you can compare a fetus to parasite at all, even if you acknowledge that technically it isn't. If something contributes to a genotype's evolutionary stability, then it is not a parasite. Both a fetus and a useful bodily organ do this. Why is one at all parasitic and the other isn't?

An organ keep you alive, a fetus don't. We are not talking about long term species survival but the effects on a single individual. But again, I'm talking on strictly biological basis, not philosophical ones, as I already stated that it would be a monstrous act to call a unborn baby a parasite.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

An organ keep you alive, a fetus don't. We are not talking about long term species survival but the effects on a single individual. But again, I'm talking on strictly biological basis, not philosophical ones, as I already stated that it would be a monstrous act to call a unborn baby a parasite.

Lord Baal you don't realise but you are talking from a philosophical point of view. Keeping an organism alive is a pretty arbitrary philosophical goal. From a biological point of view the survival of genes, not organisms should be considered. Long life of a genotype is the essence of evolution, not the long life of an individual organism. It is often beneficial for the survivival of a gene that an organism die at a very young age for example.

And from this view we can start to assign human values. We can say something that causes a genotype to survive longer is beneficial to it, and something that has the opposite effect, negative. Organs to keep the host organism alive are beneficial. Just as beneficial is the ability to reproduce, as an organism cannot exist for long, but a species can. The fetus is absolutely essential to the ability of an organism to reproduce.

This is the biological argument. It has no basis in morality, you can be pro or anti abortion or whatever in spite of this.

[Lord Baal]

No I was not. Again, we are not talking about the great ordeal of things. Just about parasites, internal parasites to be precisely. So no, we are not talking about the felling of being mother/father, the philosophical or evolutionary implications of having offspring or anything of that nature. It's a simple matter, a parasite inside a host.

To reiterate, keeping an organism alive is a philosophical goal only if you are aware of it doesn't? That's would be the case of the baby once the mother knows is pregnant. But as we are not discussing that, but the effects on the organism of a mother/host when they are pregnant/infected respectively. Then we can come out with this comparison:

A fetus is inside the body of a human, just like a parasite would. A fetus needs to trick the immune system of the mother in oder to survive, just like a parasite would do too. Both of them grow and live up from the mother/host and can be potentially harmful to the health or even deathly to the mother/host.

But that's where the similitudes ends. The fetus is the way of reproduction of a mother, while the parasite uses the host to reproduce itself. If all goes according to plan, the fetus won't hurt the mother and will be born 7 or 9 months later, while a parasite will be in the system until purged... and so on. I hope I explained myself well this time.

[Col. Tartleton]

A fetus is no more a parasite than a baby. Humans are completely reliant on our parents for years. It's why we live in extended family groups/communities.

Frankly we're often dependent well into our 20s.