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
Just to prove your point you say anything nor do you appreciate anything other points. You are like India TV, just select part of a fact and make it sensational. I don’t think its worthwhile discussing anything with you if such is the case. You just stay behind the veil of the internet and stay safe.
You’ve got it right bhagwad :). A fetus is a parasite indeed, nothing wrong with calling it that. Maternal instinct is the result of the gush of hormones which nature has ensured for the survival of the species.
For the record, I have a beautiful 10 year old boy, so I’m not talking out of “the spite of barrenness” :). Hormones are powerful things. And then there is also love you develop due to propinquity. Not that all parents love their children, but there is love. And the love you feel for a child is almost like madness. Not that it is sufficient reason to go ahead and breed, just saying that that’s what that particular love feels like.
I think the reason why most (not all, maybe some do) people don’t see the baby as a parasite is that we are not programmed that way, we are programmed to feel love for the baby. Also because many people are already planning to train the baby to be an obedient ‘budhape ka sahara’ (these ones don’t want girl babies). I am beginning to think that all life forms are just robots who can feel pain and many other things and react to all stimuli in pre-programmed ways. That is why sometimes we are even surprised t and say, “Can’t believe I did this or reacted this way or could feel this way.”
In reply to Indian Homemaker
Yeah, I too think that free will is an illusion.
I share the idea of that a until the baby has been delivered it works like a parasite(while some continue to be a parasite even long after delivery).
However one key aspect of being a parasite is that the parasite while taking in nutrition from the host, does not help or benefit the host. Since people want to have the kid, and it is in the favor of the parent then it may not count as so.
People will however goo all gung ho and say that we don’t appreciate the value of life and so on when we talk about such things..
In reply to Hrishikesh
If I remember correctly, there was a time a few decades ago when “sanitized” tapeworms were sold to people who wanted to lose weight. Though they were ingested willingly, I would still classify them as parasites.
But it’s a good point. People get emotional satisfaction from a fetus, so one can say that the parents are getting something out of it.
In reply to bhagwad
If all creatures reproduce, even creatures outside of animalia, why would they be considered parasites? Remember, reproduction is the means to ensuring the survival of a species. Parasites eat off a host of a different species to ensure the survival of their own gene pool so they can reproduce.
It is semantics really. The fact that a fetus is the same species is precisely why a fetus is not considered a parasite simply because that particular fetus is a form of assurance that the species in question will thrive somehow.
In reply to Western Point of View
Again, you make the mistake of assigning goals to biology. That leads to absurd ideas like god and all. We should avoid it.
In reply to bhagwad
Oh yes, people did ingest tape worms to get thinner. -_-
Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host
the exact definition.
Non-mutual relationship.
Ingested tapeworms is considered mutual, since the host is benefiting (ie “fat loss”)
In reply to Western Point of View
So according to you if a person willingly ingests tapeworms, they no longer should be called parasites?
In reply to Western Point of View
As a scientist, tapeworms are still considered parasites, since scientifically speaking there is a non-mutual relationship. Unlike the E.Coli found naturally in human beings stomachs, the parasites consumed by people (tapeworms) are technically eating away beneficial nutrition as well as the bad stuff (ie the “fat). So no, the tapeworms are still considered parasites. They fall into the following categories:
1: They are of a different species.
2: There is a non-mutual relationship between the organisms.
3: the tapeworm, unlike a fetus, is not in any interest to ensure the survival of the gene pool of the mother/father or the human species.
Therefore, tapeworms are still considered parasites.
E.coli on the other hand ARE NOT parasites. they provide the following:
1: They have a mutual relationship with human beings. THey allow us to eat certain foods and digest those foods while retaining the majority of the nutritional content.
2: While the above occurs, the e.coli taxes the human body in a very miniscule way and retains a very small amount of that to survive.
What happens? Both the human being AND the E.coli are allowed to reproduce. THe E.coli is not surviving at the expense of the person.
This is called a symbiotic relationship.
A fetus is NOT symbiotic. How so?
The fetus is ensuring the survival of the species in question (lion, human, e.coli etc although bacteria don’t have fetuses).
The fetus will grow up into an adult and in the human species usually provide a benefit towards the mother and father later in life.
So no, fetuses cannot be called parasites.
In reply to Western Point of View
Again you’re talking about gene pools. It doesn’t matter. Neither the fetus nor the parents care about their genes. It’s a made up benefit. No animal cares for “survival of the species”. You’re assuming that a “species” is some kind of living organism. It’s not.
You can’t use the “will benefit parents later in life” argument for obvious reasons. Caring for parents is not a biological imperative and the chances of it happening are very low.
Why do you repeat points I’ve already addressed before? It’s tiring. I already said in my post and in later comments that the different species argument is just a technicality. It’s not essential to the parasitic nature.
Passing on genes is not a benefit since it doesn’t…benefit anyone!
In reply to Western Point of View
Wait, if ingesting of the tape worms is deliberate to become thinner or for any other reason.. Doesn’t it mean that it is beneficial to the host, and hence the relation should be termed symbiotic and not parasatic regardless of the generic scientific term (as this is a special condition)
In reply to Hrishikesh
I wonder whether an emotional benefit actually counts. If you love your fleas, ticks, and lice, are they any less parasitic? I think we should only be talking of physical benefits.
Bunnies and kittens are parasites! Seriously though, it’s a designed and built in function of our bodies. Its like saying that a web browser downloading a file is an exploit. You may choose to visit a site and not download any files(aside from the site), or, you might choose to download an installer for a new program, but downloading it isn’t an exploit, because that function is directly and purposefully built into it. Do you logically view a fetus as a parasite, or are you trying to express your feelings for child-rearing by trying to equate it to your feeling for something else?
In reply to Balrog
I think you’ll have a hard time equating file downloads with child bearing :) . Our bodies aren’t “designed” for anything because there’s no “designer” and no intelligence behind it.
It is what it is.
The fact that childbearing is a process through which our genes are passed on makes no difference to the essential parasitic nature.
Far from me trying to express my feelings on child rearing by calling it a parasite, I think you’re trying to express yours by not calling it one.
In reply to bhagwad
even if you don’t believe in design, you have to believe in the evolution of it.
The fact that our genes are being passed on in itself means that there is no parasitic nature involved in fetuses.
Again, Population Genetics is my bread and butter.
You are getting your definitions mixed up. Remember, differenet species and lack of a mutual relationship. As animals, our sole reason to live is to survive ourselves and pass our gene pools.
In reply to Western Point of View
An individual gets no benefit from genes being passed on. It provides neither food, nor clothing.
No animals cares about passing on its genes. I don’t think we need debate this.
In reply to Western Point of View
Biological imperatives are important to the study of evolution. In order for species to persist, they must by definition reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so whenever physiological and environmental conditions allow it are universal among living organisms and are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms.
I’m sorry, but even if you don’t believe in religion or intelligent design, you cannot deny that species sole reasons of reproducing is to ensure their own gene pool and the survival of their species.
In reply to bhagwad
Maybe you just don’t want to see the logical similarities. How can you say you weren’t designed? It is scientifically proven you are designed according to at least one plan. It’s called DNA. It affects everything about you and if black skin is not is your DNA, you will not have black skin. Your DNA was directly designed by the process called meiosis, which has carefully placed a mix of traits without rendering your DNA useless. Why do you immediately think ‘God’ when I mention design? So… No one designed the layout of this site? It just ‘is what it is’ huh?
In reply to Balrog
Who’s denying DNA? Straw man.
You have to show that passing my DNA on benefits me in some way. I’m curious to see how you can do that.
For a design to exist, there has to be a designER. Is a storm system “designed”? Is a snowflake “designed”? No, it just is. But I designed my site no doubt about it.
Wait, are you trying to say that a fetus is a parasite, or that a parasite is any living thing? If its the former, a parasite is cross species, so you are wrong. If you argue that by saying a parasite and fetus have similarities in that they feed off a host without the hosts benefit, then you have changed the definition to any living thing (or very nearly any). And all you are really saying in the end is that a fetus is a living thing, in which case you are correct, and also saying that you view nearly any living thing as a parasite. Which at this point is really a half full / half empty thing. Everything has patterns and similarities. Language differentiates things, water and alcohol are both clear liquids, but I do not say water is alcohol, or vice-versa. Why not say light is music, they’re both waves and impulses of energy. And in that sense, light is ‘like’ music and a neat way to see it, but if we started calling any impulsive energy waves music, it would just be confusing. Why even have language?
In reply to Balrog
Does no one read the post before commenting? I’ve answered your cross species question there.
In reply to bhagwad
Really?! OMG… No crap… It was rhetorical… Implying the latter…
transitive verb
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan :
EXACTLY what many enzymes, proteins, mRNA, etc does with DNA aka “The Plan”. If you believe that implies a designER, that’s YOUR own reasoning. Unless your redefining words. If you aren’t designed, then neither is your blog.
In reply to Balrog
Dude, what are you saying? My point is that nature has no “purpose”. Nothing more.
No animal cares about passing genes? THis is an essential dogma of Population Genetics. Though animals do not have feelings like you and I, all they do is eat and have sex. Why? This is the best evolutionary trait for a species to survive. Eat lots of food and have lots of kids.
Again, the fact that a fetus is the same species goes against your post. It is what it is. Just like water is two oxygens and one hydrogen. You can disagree as much as you want, but that is the science behind it.
C’mon you’ve never heard this main biological imperative?
It’s one of the three primary drives. Eat, survive, reproduce. The majority of the members of any species of animal, humans included, is driven by basic biology to reproduce and ensure the continuation of the species.
That is it–the continuation of the species.
Why else would mother bears attack others for harming their young cubs? If animals didn’t care, the mother instinct wouldn’t be so active.
You are discussing things that are clearly against science.
By definition, since the fetus is the same species, it isn’t a parasite. Again, water has 2 hydrogens and one oxygen.
In reply to Western Point of View
I challenge you to show me even one animal that even knows anything about genes. Forget about passing them on.
“Eat, survive, reproduce”
Wrong. Eat, flee pain, have sex. Reproduction is a side effect as far as the animal is concerned. I don’t want to argue this.
In reply to bhagwad
what about viruses? Bacteria? Amoeba ?
ARe you arguing against what evolutionary biologists have been sayings probably since darwin?
what about plants? They reproduce as well.
Why would plants go through all of the trouble to reproduce?
Why would a virus go through all of that trouble to reproduce?
Why would a salamander go through all of the trouble of CLONING ITSELF to reproduce?
This, again, is why a fetus isn’t a parasite–it is the survival of the species .Evolution at best.
Remember, viruses, bacteria, amoeba, etc. do not have brains and therefore, do not feel pain. Why else would they reproduce?
Seriously, do you have any parasitology, evolutionary biology or any biological background?
In reply to Western Point of View
Lol, what are you saying? That viruses mate? Since when?
Find me a leech that’s well versed in genetics and DNA.
btw individuals don’t benefit you are right. Species do.
What happens if humans stop reproducing? They cease to exist, which, again, is why a fetus is NOT like a parasite.
Can you prove that human beings can continue to exist if 100% of human beings stopped reproducing?
In reply to Western Point of View
A parasite like a fetus gives nothing to the individual organism off which it feeds. The “species” is not a living feeling thing.
gene pools are exactly why fetuses aren’t parasites. We are evolutionary programmed to care instinctively. Just like hyenas or lions or elephants or amoeba. Animals instinctively care about their species whether you like to admit it or not. Otherwise, animals wouldn’t eat or have sex and reproduce.
THe difference in species is a technicality, just like water having 1 oxygen and not 2. What happens if you drink h202? you drink hydrogen peroxide and die off, right?
The fact is, this technicality is an important technicality.
In reply to Western Point of View
Animals have sex because it feels good. They couldn’t care less about the species.
In reply to bhagwad
“feels good?” Animals do not have feel the same type of pleasure human beings do.
What about amoeba? THey technically mate, but have no brains so cannot “feel good” about sex?
In reply to Western Point of View
What? Are you saying that animals have sex because it doesn’t feel good? Find me a dog that knows about genes and the gene pool. Then we’ll talk :)
Amoebas mate? I thought it was binary fission.
In reply to Western Point of View
mate is the wrong word, i should have said reproduce, just like how animals reproduce.
Asexual reproduction.