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
i want to ask you
Viruses replicate their genomes, right?
Birds replicate their genomes, right?
Duck billed playtapus replicate their genomes, right?
Gorillas replicate their genomes, right?
Guess what…all organisms have a form of replicating their genomes.
how do we do it? We carry our replicated offspring in our tummies–a fetus. Again, another reason you cannot call a fetus a parasite–it is ensuring the fitness of our species.
Did we design it? no. Billions of years of evolution LED US to replicate our genomes this way.
BTW, again, not all animals have the ability to “feel good” sponges are animals and lack a brain.
In reply to Western Point of View
So you agree with me that a fetus doesn’t benefit its host right?
btw, why do you think it feels so good? So we can do it more often.
So you are telling me that animals that do not mate such as sponges simply replicate their DNA, but humans, which are also animals, mate not to replicate their DNA, but do it because they feel good?
Guess what…we replicate our genomes. Our babies are genome replicants of their moms and dads. Babies also ensure the fitness of the human species.
How dow we ensure this fitness? Having a fetus.
How is a fetus NOT a parasite? It ensures the fitness of the host species. Parasites ensure the fitness of THEIR OWN speices (ie tapeworms). They replicate as well in the host. They transmit themselves in their own ways (animal carcasses, urine, fecal matter, etc.)
ALL organisms have a form of genome replication. How do we do it? We have fetuses that carry the genomes of the sperm/egg source (mom and dad).
Evolution led us to this.
if our method of genome replication doesn’t work, our species dies. Happens to plenty of other species.
So more reasons as to why a fetus is not a parasite.
In reply to Western Point of View
The underlying reasons for why it feels good have no logical connection to the argument.
It seems you basically agree with me – that a fetus doesn’t benefit the host carrying it. So what are you arguing over?
In reply to bhagwad
i never said that.
The host benefits simply because it is assuring its genome is replicated and its species survives.
Isn’t it easier that we have millions of human beings doing different things rather than only 1 human being?
In reply to Western Point of View
“The host benefits simply because it is assuring its genome is replicated and its species survives.”
That’s not a benefit.
Please don’t embarrass yourself. No one has a baby thinking “I must keep my species alive”. Lol!
IT is benefiting the host. The hosts genome remains immortal and the host species survives.
Do animals care? No. It is simply evolutionary design. Animals do not care if they are alive or not. They are simply doing what they do–survive by eating and reproducing. We do the same thing.
The host species survive is the primary funciton.
Now let me ask you something.
Virus replication is done by DNA/RNA replication
Sponge replication–sponge budding
Amoeba asexually reproduce by fission as you said.
Plants pollinate to spread their genomes.
So how do mammals replicate their DNA?
Hate to break it to you, but ALL organisms, including us have a genome, however not all organisms carry a fetus. That is specific only to mammals.
Evolution, by chance, has selected mammalian genome replication as fit. It works. We are still alive.
The host INNATELY wants its species to survive.
In reply to Western Point of View
The species surviving is not a benefit to the host.
“The host INNATELY wants its species to survive.”
No it doesn’t. Show me a dog who’s concerned about its species survival and I’ll agree to your point.
btw, isn’t it common sense if an animal has more of its own species than a few?
Think of it this way. There are lots of human beings on earth, right? We have human beings with specific functions–some are doctors, chefs, scientists, etc.
They provide us with an easier life.
Isn’t it easier to have lots of humans than only 1? Imagine if you were the last human being. I’m sure you can survive just fine,but isn’t it simply easier if you have more of your own species?
Again, all species have the INNATE drive to maintain survival. DO they acknowledge it? Absolutely not. It is simply innate. They really do not care consciously (well animals do not have a conscious in the first place). Viruses replicate to survive, that is it. Humans have sex and replicate to survive, that is it.
We replicate just like viruses except we do it using an egg and sperm. Viruses simply replicate their own DNA/RNA.
Whether you like it or not, sponges, viruses, gorillas and humans are all their own species. They all have genomes, they replicate and they have an ecological niche they take up.
In reply to Western Point of View
“well animals do not have a conscious in the first place”
We’re animals too. It’s a continuum. Really, one cannot continue a discussion with a person who says that animals are not conscious.
In light of you not making sense and claiming that dogs and cats care about their species survival, I think this has gone on long enough.
End of this discussion.
In reply to bhagwad
Comment deleted
so, to end my discussion, you are essentially disproving evolutionary biology, parasitology, virology, zoology just to show what the “individual” wants? I’m sorry, but that isn’t how evolution or natural selection works.
Natural selection is nature’s way of selecting what lives and what dies. Dinosaurs were naturally selected out by disease, changing climate, etc. while mammals were selected afterward.
The fact that we have fetuses is our form of natural selection. We replicate our genomes in the form of the fetus, it then does the same, then its progeny does the same over and over again.
The host has an INNATE interest in its species surviving.
This is completely on point as to why a fetus is NOT a parasite. What does it provide the host? The survival of the host species.
What happens if we have no more fetuses? Humans die off as a species. I’d say that it is in our interest to stay alive, right?
Yes we are animals.
So are sponges. They are animals.
Can you prove to me that sponges have brains? You need a central nervous system to “feel good,” right?
In reply to Western Point of View
I stopped reading when you said that animals have no consciousness and that dogs and cats care whether their species survive. Certainly no human parents ever have kids thinking about the well being of their species!
Under the guise of “biology” you can’t twist it to suit your own strange world view. No biologist ever claimed that animals don’t have consciousness. No biologist believes that dogs have an interest in their species survival. So whether or not you really are a biologist is completely irrelevant to me. You’re just not making sense, biologist or not.
So this is the last comment I’m letting stand out of respect for the discussion we had. No offence.
In reply to bhagwad
Well, let me rephrase what I said. Animals conscious is much more limited than ours as human beings.
I admit, i was wrong. The fact that they have a central nervous system proves me wrong.
However, BIOLOGISTS do believe that dogs, cats, viruses, etc., have an INNATE interest (not direct) to survive.
I am a biologist. Started in population genetics than went more into molecular since it is where the money is.
If anything, you are going against evolutionary principles. How is that making any sense?
Having a fetus–0ur evolutionary design to stay fit, that is it.
Parasites–feeding off of hosts. That is theyr design to stay fit.
Parasites HAVE to be different species.
That is the definition, whether you like it or not.
In reply to Western Point of View
I’m not going against evolutionary principles. Never have I denied survival of the fittest. Your claim that I am doing so is a complete straw man.
My point is so simple I don’t know why you’re talking about irrelevant things. Here it is:
A fetus does not benefit its host. Simple. This is parasitic behavior. You can debate whether or not this qualifies the fetus as a parasite based on whatever definition you want.
That won’t change the fact that it’s sucking nutrients from the host and gives nothing back. It doesn’t change the fact that childbirth is dangerous. It doesn’t change the fact that the host only gets an emotional and not a real physical benefit.
This is what parasites do. Nothing I’ve said is open to interpretation. These are facts. So by all means go ahead and squibble about the “definition” of a parasite. The fact remains that the host is better of without the fetus.
And this REALLY is the end of this discussion. I won’t approve any more comments on this.
When i conceived i had no grandiose ideas that i was either helping to pass on genetic material or helping to ensure the survival of the human race. In a previous comment i have mentioned one reason why it felt so good to be pregnant ( please do read it ) and now here is another. It has to do with the father of the child. It’s an awesome feeling to think that you will give birth to a child who has a part of the the man you love in it. In this case there is no question of feeling that the foetus in your womb is a parasite ( even though in purely physical terms it is ) – there is a symbiotic one sided emotional relationship with it.
I wonder whether i would have the same sentiment if i conceived after being raped, or if i hated the man i was married to – in these instances i might feel that the foetus was a parasite…
In reply to tp
I agree. And that’s a good point. I don’t think anyone is denying that a woman can get tremendous emotional benefit from a fetus.
You’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest! Loved reading the comments. Your post reminded me of a post I read by Naomi Wolf about how as a new mother she wasn’t overcome by maternal affection when she saw her baby for the first time. Commentators abused her. It is because of this reaction many women don’t verbalize what they actually feel.
In reply to Sraboney
Maybe those commenters were guilty because they too may not have felt love for their own kids the first time they saw them but didn’t have the courage to admit it…
In reply to bhagwad
not me, I don’t have any kids, :p
yo, what about my sea cucumber post lol? C’mon, many sea cucumbers internally brood their young, have no true brains. So why do they do so? Don’t they innately reproduce like the rest of us?
How is that not on topic?
and yes, sea cucumbers are considered animals.
Hope this comment sees the light of day :)
In reply to Western Point of View
Come on – you’re not staying on topic. Your question of why they breed is like asking why does a watch tick? Or why does a car run. They’re machines. There is no “why”. They survive because they reproduce. They don’t reproduce in order to survive.
And please, this conversation ends here. Further posts will be deleted.
Hi Bhagwad,
You say “fetus is a parasite that doesn’t benefit the host”. While I can see where you are going with your argument I find it difficult to accept that statement. Nature chose a grand scheme to replicate the parents’ DNA in this fetus. It seems a lot of hard work to continue to prolong life on the planet – what is the purpose for that? The gestation period varies from species to species – and some carry multiple fetuses. Almost universally every species attempts to prolong life on this planet. What is your view on that – why is it necessary? I can’t think of a clear answer. In Nature’s view continuation of life is more valuable than each life form’s travails.
In humans, we have emotional bonds with different forms of life – for instance people love their pets as family. When a close family member passes away, or a pet, there is sadness or emptiness created in their loved ones. What causes the sadness? I cannot explain that sadness when I lost a loved one.
I suppose the opposite is created when a fetus comes alive in this world and that is why many people (including me) keep the sonogram as a memory of those happy moments. Humans can gauge loss and gain and for most people life is all about pursuit of happiness.
In reply to Bharath
I hear you. I understand what you’re saying. But I don’t believe that nature has a grand plan. Evolution is just random mutations and organisms that replicate happen to survive. They replicate either out of instinct, or because it feels the urge like hunger.
Nature has made most species extinct. It doesn’t care one way or the other. Of course, we feel sad when our loved ones die. That’s because we loved them no?
In reply to bhagwad
I agree that evolution of living beings have been all based on chance – I can accept that theory, (and so is extinction). We have to expect both to go hand in hand. But I also think that we should credit intelligence in nature (what many call nature’s grand plan). For instance, I heard a programme on the radio the other day where a couple of biologists were describing intelligence in one of the lowest life forms – in bacteria. They presented an experimental observation where clusters of bacteria would remain dormant on a host organism and would not be parasitic until they reach a certain number. This was to prevent being exterminated when they were weak – they were playing by strength of numbers. So to survive they were replicating and creating their “next generation”.
We all started from a similar single cell life form – so the same instinct is present in us as well. Now this is my view – maybe far fetched but if we extrapolate in the same way, we humans also need to replicate in order to ensure survival of our species. So looking at it in this way – I feel that a fetus cannot be deemed parasitic. It may be parasitic for the host (for a short while), but it supports the life form (ensures its continuity).
I mentioned about loss of a loved one to respond to your first para in your post – it does not bear a lot of value to other points you have raised. Some may carry a sonogram as a trophy, but many don’t.
In reply to Bharath
it wouldn’t be intelligence per se, but more survival instincts. Bacteria innately (note the term innately) understand what it takes to survive as a species through years of evolution. Do they think? no. These are simply their forms of survival.
Us having a fetus clearly demonstrates that we as a species have successfully survived by this mode of reproduction. In other words, it works for us.
“feeling good” is just a nice side effect to it. Obviously, sea cucumbers cannot “feel good” since they lack true brains, but at the same time understand INNATELY through years of evolution (although the term understand I use very very very very loosely) what it takes to survive–brooding your young internally.
Again more reason that a fetus cannot be called a parasite.
It can be “like” a parasite, as the original title says, but it IS not a parasite. A dog is LIKE wolf, but a dog IS NOT a wolf.
it would have saved my time from reading and replying to this post if only if your parents had this wonderful thought of yours.
In reply to khaleel
Too late right? :D