I’ve always wondered what parents find so adorable in sonogram images of the fetus that they have to carry it around in their wallets and phones. Maybe the realization that they are responsible for the creation of a life. That there in those photographs is a representation of themselves – their own DNA. Perhaps the closest to ever feeling that you’re a God. I don’t know, I’m just guessing.
I have to confess though that I’ve always been kind of creeped out by the whole concept of a baby. Especially when it hasn’t been born yet. The sight of a person’s tummy bulging with a life form, sucking their nutrients out day after day…growing bigger and bigger until the time comes when the host’s body can’t contain it anymore. And then it rushes out, almost exploding into the world in a terrible crisis of pain, rupturing the body that fed it for 9 months. Brrr. Like something straight out of “Aliens”. And it doesn’t look too pretty when it emerges either. I get chills just thinking about it. There must be some kind of maternal instinct at work here because from a logical perspective, I would have just one thought were I a pregnant woman – “Get this thing outa me!!”
I mean is it just me, but does a fetus feel a hell of a lot like a parasite? Contributing nothing to the host organism, and making use of the sheltering body to sustain itself. Even after birth, it gets its emotional tentacles into the mother, drawing milk from her and emotionally blackmailing her into caring for it for the next ten or twenty years.
Now I know the formal definition of a parasite is that they have to from a different species. Also the birth of the fetus is just the beginning of its lifecycle. But these are just technicalities. In its very essence, we have one organism feeding on another. It’s not a symbiotic relationship with a give and take. It’s parasitic, pure and simple.
Does it matter? Probably not since people seem to enjoy having this thing growing inside them. Occasionally it some areas it becomes illegal to remove it after a certain stage. It’s just that it’s a whole new way of looking at the process and most people to whom I pitch this idea take a while adjusting to the notion, trying to square off their image of dangerous looking parasitic organisms like worms etc with the cute cuddly runts we see running around all the time. Hey, it is what it is!
I guess it also feels good to throw those off who believe that “life begins at conception” and that abortion is “killing babies”. I particularly enjoy the outrage when they sputter “How could you think that?” :D
Well, I will keep my emotions aside. We have had this discussion before :-) but I was never able to put it in the right words to explain you, because the whole process of creating a life, fortunately or unfortunately, has to be experienced to know it. No one can never understand until they have gone through it. Till then, we are all fence sitters and all we can do is give opinion about the pain that we see and hear and not see the love and affection that follows in the family after that. If you would have gone through the process, I would be even more interested in getting into further discussion with you about this blog. I am pretty sure, if you have been with your patner during the entire process, you will never write such a blog. Trust me, its like sky diving, by mere sight, it looks scary, but once you have experienced it, its a different feeling altogether. Fence sitters will call it scary and fools to those who have tried it, but the one who have done it, most of them will probably would want to try it again.
In reply to Vinod
But do we really “create” that life? We can be responsible for setting it in motion, but we really don’t know how to “create” it as such. The body does the work without much intervention from us. A guy just has to have sex and a woman just needs to eat right and everything else just happens.
We also create life in other ways – the worms in our stomachs also reproduce because of us, we we’re responsible for creating life in that way also. But looking at it that way doesn’t make people feel the sentimentality of creating a baby…
Parasite it is technically , but most mothers love it so much that they actually GLOW after the initial few months of nausea and puking is over. The overwhelming feeling is probably ( and i’ve analyzed this deeply ) that she has found a REASON to live; to get through the drudgery of life ( housekeeping and taking orders from the husband ). She needs to keep her chin up, be positive, responsible and keep in good health to be able to look after this helpless totally dependent foetus that will be been born to her. After it has been born, caring for the child is different from caring for a puppy in that it’s not just it’s physical needs that have to be catered to; its her responsibility to do all she can to instill acceptable habits and values into this child; if she doesnt who else will? who else would care if this child turned out to be a socially unacceptable person that society would reject- which other heart would ache when this child was ill, sad, misunderstood, treated unfairly or dejected except it’s mothers ( except in some cases a father’s or grandparents ? ) and so it’s not a parasitic but a symbiotic relationship – mother and child taking and giving to each other – it’s a wonderful part of what life is all about – and after balancing out the pros and cons i couldnt have missed out on it…
No one creates life… tell me one area where a life is created by a person or being. Our role in nature is to nurture the life that is created inside the womb.
People might object to the word ‘Parasite’. You are very particular about the word that you use, that is one thing that is good about you. If I compare a tapeworm and a baby inside a mother, the only difference that is there is the emotional connect. You cannot use the word parasite if there is an emotions attached to it. The debate would be kind of fair in case there is a surrogacy for which I really cannot comment because I don’t know if there is any emotional connect.
In reply to Vinod
I admit that the difference here is that the person is attached to this particular parasite. I agree that there can be an emotional connect. No doubt about it.
I agree with Vinod on the issue that one must experience it to actually understand it. Right now, whenever I think of pregnancy, I just think about how my body may go through all these changes, and those changes really aren’t appealing at all. Many people don’t realize how pregnancy takes a toll on a woman’s body. That’s why maternal mortality rates are extremely high in many parts of the world. I know some women welcome those changes, for them it’s a challenge! I think for them it’s test of their womanhood.
Still you use the word parasite. :-) Its like calling a person Bastard even though the parents are married. :-)
In reply to Vinod
Really? So you’re saying the fetus is not a parasite am I right? If not, why not?
Because you are not terming it in the right context. You have to keep in mind the context before using the word. Don’t you agree with it ? If not, I have serious questions on you English language, which I had really respected.
In reply to Vinod
To my knowledge, emotional connection has nothing to do with calling something a parasite. I can love the tapeworms in my stomach, but they’re still parasites.
Am I wrong?
Correcting some typos…
Obviously you are… If you were talking in strict biological/zoological/anatomical term then I would not have objected. But your post is tagged as Philosophy, Personal. You can love the tapeworm in your body, that is entirely up to you. But you cannot change what a general acceptance of the society is. If you really want to call it a parasite, change the context of your post to a relevant scientifically name or whatever so that it caters to the right audience.
In reply to Vinod
Sorry – I don’t understand. Either I’m right, or I’m wrong. I’m not sure what the “acceptance of society” has to do with it.
In reply to bhagwad
Nice way of chickening out rather than agreeing…
In reply to bhagwad
What I mean is the perspective society or people look at it as. You are right when it is looked upon as a pure scientific terms. When you look from a general perspective what everyone look at it as, you are incorrect.
P.S. I think you delete comments on your posts.
In reply to Vinod
But being a parasite has nothing to do with “general perspective”. 2+2 = 4 even if “society” doesn’t agree.
Did one of your comments get deleted?
They are lovable parasites. Not only when in womb but for atleast 18 years outside of it. They suck up your physical, emotional and financial resources.
But dammit they are cute!
In reply to Clueless
Yep – that’s all part of their devious plan! Be as cute as possible so that the host has no choice but to raise you :D
technically not really. Your point is that the parasite lives off the host, but remember, babies are from the same species.
Also, if you think of it this way, the primary reason species exist is to ensure their and survival of their gene pool. In other words, they don’t want to be extinct. Even if it means destroying OTHER species, a species (like human beings) want to ensure they survive first. Making sure the gene pool is safe and the species can pass on their gene pool is a primary goal of most things that show signs of homeostasis. The fact that we love to have sex and eat food is a sign of this.
So yes and now fetuses are/are not parasites. They are not parasites because the parasites goal is to make sure it survives even if the host does not, although it would prefer if the host does survive. A fetus WANTS the host to be as healthy as possible simply because a fetus simply cannot jump from one host to another. Also, after a baby is born, the fetus wants to be sure it has the ability to have shelter, food, etc.
In reply to Western Point of View
A fetus doesn’t “want” anything. Neither does a tapeworm. The fact that it’s technically the same species is just that…a technicality.
In reply to bhagwad
A fetus/baby is just like an animal until it reaches the cognitive stages. Animals don’t “want” anything. They just are there to survive, that is it. THey are not like us–we “want” to express ourselves, we “want” to drink pepsi, etc. Animals just do what they need to do to survive, just like a fetus.
Tapeworms are ensuring the survival of their species. A fetus is intended by its parent to ensure the survival of the parent’s gene pool. Remember, the gene pool is animalia’s answer to immortality.
Population Genetics is my bread and butter. Calling the same species a parasite is technically off, since the parent wants to ensure the survival of its own species by reproducing.
In reply to Western Point of View
I don’t believe a fetus is even conscious. To me, a fetus is less than an ant or a worm. It’s just a clump of cells till a certain point and is just some growth in the body.
We mustn’t think about “intentions” when discussing biology. “Nature” is not a conscious entity that has some goals in mind. We have sex for pleasure, not to produce babies. Tapeworms don’t care about the survival of their species. They feel hungry. They eat. That’s it.
I’ve already addressed the question of technicality and species in my post.
Let’s just say that fetuses are parasitic in nature. :P That’s how I look at it.
In reply to RenKiss
Yup, that seems about right.