Is a fetus a parasite?

[Culain]

In the recent open classroom on liberty.me with Stefan Molyneux this question that was asked sparked quite a bit of a response from the community. The chat exploded in multiple directions with some claiming such as myself that it was a symbiotic relationship and others that it is a parasite. Stefan was repulsed by the question in that he wondered, what kind of person would call their child a parasite?

 

Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, as a parasite provides no mutual value to the host.

 

After mulling it over a while in my head, I wondered if perhaps if both positions were correct depending on the view of the host. If the mother wanted to get pregnant because she felt it would bring value then it could be called a symbiotic relationship, but if the pregnancy was not wanted regardless of "The how she got pregnant" that it could be considered a parasite because the host sees no value in it, only loss.

 

Perhaps this subject could warrant a video because of the strong reactions it provoked in both me, Stefan, and the listeners.

[JamesP]

If somebody uses a word that is unambiguously derogatory and then attempts to back off to the scientific definition when challenged, they are manipulative and dishonest.

 

You don't go around calling a fetus a "parasite" without the intent of getting a rise out of people. You're throwing a bomb into the conversation, hoping for an emotional reaction.

[Lians]

Words have meaning... To call a child a parasite is to miss some pretty important characteristics of both parasites and children. In what context did this question come up?

[TheMatrixHasMe]

Is a fetus a parasite? Is a question that is based on a false definition of parasite.

 

Parasites, by definition are organisms that live on or in another species.

[Culain]

My memory is playing tricks on me and I completely forgot about this, but I believe the context was brought up when Stefan was giving his views on abortion and evictionism and the person he was speaking with referred to the fetus as a parasite (I believe it was in the defense of evictionism) which Stefan challenged. The debate over this point never got to finish because the moderator decided to pass the topic after a half hour.

[Kevin Beal]

I don't know how true it is, but I've heard that if the blood type is different from the mother's the fetus can literally be rejected by the body the way a parasite would be.

[fractional slacker]

To quote the (female) Clinton cretin "What difference does it make?"How would reality change if a fetus is relabled as a parasite? Is this a proxy for the ethics of the abortion debate? Like how would the world become a better place if we were to somehow figure out what to call a future human that is developing inside a woman? 

[Lians]

My memory is playing tricks on me and I completely forgot about this, but I believe the context was brought up when Stefan was giving his views on abortion and evictionism and the person he was speaking with referred to the fetus as a parasite (I believe it was in the defense of evictionism) which Stefan challenged. The debate over this point never got to finish because the moderator decided to pass the topic after a half hour.

 

People who conflate concepts often do so because of strong emotional undercurrents:

"The brain is a computer!"

"Really? Like your laptop?"

"No, more complex, different structure, self-programming... [mechanical clicking noises] The brain is a laptop!"

 

Why do you think you had such a strong emotional reaction?

[Wesley]

The fetus is no more a parasite than if I go to the store and buy a pet and take it home and now have to take care of it that that pet would be a parasite.

 

The mother chooses to have a child, and thus it is not parasitical and in fact I would consider many more parents to be parasites of their children than children or fetuses to be parasites of their parents.

 

It is possible that in the extremity of rape one could consider the fetus to be a parasite as it is taking from the host against the desires of the host and to no benefit of the host, but this describes an exceedingly small percentage of pregnancies as to be nearly irrelevant for normal discussion.

 

It is almost certain that an individual who was supporting the ideas of evictionism or other such ideas was viewed by their parents (or they are a parent who viewed their kids as a parasite) in which they ignored the fundamental reality that the child never chose to be there or wanted to be there, but the parents were the ones who performed the actions necessary to bring the child into the world.

 

If you chose to bring it into the world and bring it home to take care of it, the child must be giving you something in return as far as enjoyment or happiness or something, or else it would not have happened. People need to take responsibility for their decisions instead of creating abstract theories that ignore the circumstances by which the fetus was created in order to justify their regret or in order to normalize the feelings of their parents.

[Culain]

Why do you think you had such a strong emotional reaction?

 

 

[Comment Removed]

[Magnus]

Are the 500 species of bacteria that live inside our intestines parasites? No, they are characterized as commensal, even though they are occasionally harmful or fatal.

 

To call one's offspring parasitical is patently false, and so can only be motivated by malice.

[Lians]

The word parasite has a history in my past that I used to call my younger step-brother a parasite for a long period of time. He would genuinely be interested in things that I would do or hang around me and I would insult him with that term repeatedly because I was jealous of the positive attention he received from our parents while I got no attachment with our parents. I attempted to bring this up with him and apologize a few years ago but he said that he has no memory of it or it doesn't matter, I don't feel like I'll get any closure on the awful treatment that I subjected to him.

 

Can you recall the exact feelings? I'd understand if it was guilt and shame, feelings you've probably felt with regards to how you treated your step-brother, but my impression of what you shared is that the experience was a lot more visceral. Like it stabbed you right in the core of who you are and made you blank out. Is this the case? You see, we insult others by reaching in for what hurts us the most. Also, kudos for doing the right thing and apologizing!

[MMX2010]

Just wanted to say that I enjoy this conversation very much.  I've nothing to add to it, but both the give-and-take and multiplicity of inputs make me happy to be part of FDR. 

[...]

.

[june]

The mother chooses to have a child

says who?maybe she didnt choose to have a child. maybe she chose to have sex and an unwanted side-effect of that action is a child. what do you make of this argument?

[shirgall]

maybe she chose to have sex and an unwanted side-effect of that action is a child

 

It's a silly argument. There are few people that don't know that a common result of unprotected sex is pregnancy.

 

Heck, it's even common knowledge that the rhythm method doesn't work.

 

May as well speed the wrong way down the oncoming lane of traffic because a head-on collision is an unwanted side-effect of that, too.

[june]

It's a silly argument. There are few people that don't know that a common result of unprotected sex is pregnancy.

 

Heck, it's even common knowledge that the rhythm method doesn't work.

 

May as well speed the wrong way down the oncoming lane of traffic because a head-on collision is an unwanted side-effect of that, too.

sometimes protection doesnt work. in those cases, is the person morally permitted to have an abortion?

[shirgall]

sometimes protection doesnt work. in those cases, is the person morally permitted to have an abortion?

 

Are you are claiming that the chances are vanishingly small that your conscious action leads to a particular result that you are not responsible for that result?

 

You will be judged by others in how you handle that responsibility. Recklessness is noticed and people will react accordingly.

 

Your question about the morality of the matter requires universally applicable actions. Must all babies be brought to term? Must none? There are arguments against both positions, so it gets incredibly complicated almost immediately.

 

Some things do become universal. Once born, parents must care for and guide children until they are mature enough to be independent, for example. This is because they are dependent on those parents and those parents chose to bring them about.

 

This is murkier before they are born.

 

My recommendation is to read the UPB book, as it can give you a little more framework to work on this knotty problem.

[june]

Are you are claiming that the chances are vanishingly small that your conscious action leads to a particular result that you are not responsible for that result?

if i interpret it this correctly, then yes, that is what i am pondering.how much risk is necessary in an action for one to be/not to be responsible for the effect of that action? like, if a person who has unprotected sex is not morally permitted to have an abortion, because that child was a "high" risk of their action, then okay. but what if they wore protection ("low risk"), but still conceived a child, are they still not permitted? what if they sat on a toilet seat and in a trillion-to-1 chance became pregnant, are they still not permitted because they took the risk of sitting on a toilet seat?so yeah, i'm wondering where the line of responsibility is drawn between an action and the possible effects (however small or large) of that action.

[shirgall]

so yeah, i'm wondering where the line of responsibility is drawn between an action and the possible effects (however small or large) of that action.

 

Again, look into the UPB book for help on the framework.

 

In American law this particular problem is addressed with the "Reasonable Person" standard. If a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what the defendant knew, would perform the same action, then that action might be okay. This standard is adjudicated by the jury, drawing on their beliefs on what is reasonable. This is considered "good enough" for the law.

 

Morality has more time and more call to be absolute and universal. If you perform an action that harms another you are responsible for that action, no matter how unlikely the harm might have been. This is why people buy insurance, because things happen that you cannot predict or expect.

[Magnus]

says who?maybe she didnt choose to have a child. maybe she chose to have sex and an unwanted side-effect of that action is a child. what do you make of this argument?

That's like saying that firing a gun randomly into a crowd of people has an unwanted side effect of killing someone, because the shooter did not desire that particular person's death. People can be deemed to have chosen the natural and predictable consequences of their actions, even if they claim they didn't want those consequences.

[june]

People can be deemed to have chosen the natural and predictable consequences of their actions, even if they claim they didn't want those consequences.

so if the effect of an action isn't "natural and predictable", then morality is not a factor? and how do you determine what is "natural and predictable", specifically?

[Magnus]

so if the effect of an action isn't "natural and predictable", then morality is not a factor? and how do you determine what is "natural and predictable", specifically?

I don't know what you mean by "morality is not a factor." Do you mean that the action in question is not immoral?If so, then I would say yes -- an act is ethical (or unethical) depending, inter alia, on whether the actor can foresee a harmful effect of his act.

 

If you flip a light switch in your house, normally that act causes no harm.  But what if the house is filled with flammable gas, due to a gas leak?  You don't know it, but flipping the light switch will ignite the house, killing all its occupants (including yourself).  The awareness of the effects of our behavior is what makes our decisions either unethical or not-unethical. 

 

One of the effects of having sexual intercourse is conceiving offspring.  It's a strict prerequisite, actually.  Apart from using very expensive laboratories, offspring are not created but for the act of intercourse.  I'd say that it would take an unusual degree of ignorance of basic biology not to know that creating offspring is a natural and predictable effect of sex.

[Avocadogreta]

This is a very interesting conversation - my pregnant friend and I were just discussing this! She was complaining about how much she needs to eat, how exhausted she is all the time, and all the nutrient that the 'parasite,' (yes, she called her child a 'parasite') is taking away from her. She went on to say that even her husband was upset at her using that term to describe their unborn child. 

 

The growing child truly does take all of those things away from the mother (or, 'host'), I can see why people would call a fetus a parasite - it fits the definition of the word. However, I think how a person views life (in this case, the life of an unborn child - whether intended or not) will likely determine whether or not they will call the life a 'parasite.' 

[june]

I don't know what you mean by "morality is not a factor." Do you mean that the action in question is not immoral?

i mean that if an effect of your action is not "natural and predictable", does morality then not apply?if you answer "yes", then the next question must be "how do you define a "natural and predictable" effect?" 

 

If so, then I would say yes -- an act is ethical (or unethical) depending, inter alia, on whether the actor can foresee a harmful effect of his act.

but forseeing isn't a black and white scenario, there are lots of grey areas too. almost always there is a certain risk of something going wrong with any action. for example: i know there is a possibility (however slim) that the food i bought could possibly cause harm to my child; i know that me crossing the road at a red light contains the possibility of being run over; i know that me driving in a car has a possibility of being in crash.i forsee such possibilities of these actions. i forsee that i can be a in car crash just by being on the road (even if i am at no "direct" fault for the accident). so does this mean that i am morally culpable for the harm that my child faces in this scenario? i didnt "directly" cause the crash, but i forsaw that such a thing could happen by driving on the road. so does morality apply here?this all comes down to your definition of "natural and predictable". 

[cab21]

what definition of parasite is being used?

 

it does not fit the definition as used in science.

 

it might fit the definition as used in slang to be derogatory.

[OzTrAlien]

Starting from a UAP where gestation within the female/mother is the Natural method of reproduction, anything other becomes unnatural

in the reproductive path.    Putting aside the "tall asian" for now of pregnancy through rape, lack of understanding and divine conception*wink wink*

we can say sexual intercorse is part of the Natural reproduction process, whereby engagement in sexual intercorse will lead to procreation/reproduction.

 

Now we have the UPB where those who partake in consentual sexual intercorse are fully aware of the consequences, "tall asians" aside for now,

the UPB in this would be, if not wanting to produce offspring don't engage in intercorse, this leaves those engaging in sexual intercorse where pregnancy

is unwanted in a position of playing "russian roulette", putting aside all claims or methods of "prevention used" it still can not be equated to UPB, i hear the

"what abouts" creeping in right now, like for an "expression of love" the "mutual pleasure" or just straight out "pleasure" of it all, *click* guess you got lucky

this time, in reality to construct around that framework is the same as a drug users saying its just for the "high", indeed it is, it needs to be seen in a Natural light

where sexual intercorse is for procreation.

 

At this point we can bring the "tall asian" into the room, the UAP/UPB construct present what can only be deemed natural or real in outcomes and choices

any variations are now up for individual assessment on what can be deemed as "Acceptable", the difference being that what takes the situation away from

Universal application, and now needs to be totally viewed from an individual evaluation to find if it can be seen as Acceptable practice or an Acceptable outcome

under UAP/UPB.

 

Is a fetus a parasite? "parasite" by definition has an accepted symbiotic relationship, a "two way street", it inhabits the host it doesn't leave, a fetus on the other hand

is gestated non "symbiotic" it gives nothing back to the bearer a "one way street", it leaves the body of the bearer...and becomes the next great step for Humanity and

a whole bundle of "fun" for the parents.

 

Be Well. 

[Frosty]

Definitions are everything.

 

I have no really strong technical understanding of what a parasite is, only a sort of colloquial understanding, so I simply went to google dictionary and found this:

 

 

 

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

 

It seems to fit that definition perfectly well. The term parasite has negative connotations to it so maybe that's why Stefan was shocked, although I have to say that he often cuts through the language barrier by being blunt to callers on the call in show, so it's rather surprising to see him dishing it out frequently but then being shocked himself to hear it.

 

I'd be careful what you infer from the parasite definition, you're playing a bit of a word game if you're using the term parasite to justify certain actions against the child or mother, for example I'd be super skeptical about any propositions that started "It's just a parasite therefore..."

[Magnus]

Definitions are everything.I have no really strong technical understanding of what a parasite is, only a sort of colloquial understanding, so I simply went to google dictionary and found this:It seems to fit that definition perfectly well ..."

The key word here is "expense." That's an economic term, so its use in biology is metaphorical. A pregnant female is designed to produce offspring, the way that a male is designed to fertilize females. Animals evolved that way. To say that gestating a fetus occurs at the mother's "expense" is like saying that male ejaculation occurs at his "expense." It's what the body is made to do. It's like saying that exhalation occurs at the breather's "expense." It's nonsense.

[Frosty]

The key word here is "expense." That's an economic term, so its use in biology is metaphorical.A pregnant female is designed to produce offspring, the way that a male is designed to fertilize females. Animals evolved that way. To say that gestating a fetus occurs at the mother's "expense" is like saying that male ejaculation occurs at his "expense." It's what the body is made to do.It's like saying that exhalation occurs at the breather's "expense." It's nonsense.

 

It's perfectly fine as an economical term, in very real economics of the body things like nutrients and energy are a cost the host has to field, as well as the cost of reduced mobility and vulnerability to elements and predators, and so on.

 

I think you're equivocating here, there's 2 senses in which you can use the word expense, one as a purely economical term, more or less synonymous with "cost" which in a pure biological sense I find extremely hard to imagine how anyone would disagree with this. The other sense has more negative connotations as is relates to causing harm at the expense of someone, defined as:

 

 

at the expense of

So as to cause harm to or neglect of:

'the pursuit of profit at the expense of the environment'

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/expense

 

Exhalation sounds silly as a expense/cost because it doesn't really cost you anything, nothing that's of value to your body anyway, in fact it's desirable to exhale carbon dioxide, for example if there was another life form in your lungs that absorbed carbon dioxide you'd consider that a symbiotic relationship rather than a parasitical one, because it's actually doing you a favour. To address ejaculation as an expense, sure it is, not much of an expense, but it does cost your body something to produce.

[OzTrAlien]

A pregnant female is designed to produce offspring, the way that a male is designed to fertilize females. Animals evolved that way.

 

As Mangus shows here it is part of the natural biological process of species reproduction,  would an egg laid by a chicken be considered a parasite?

 

 

 

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

 

Consider its meaning,  compare the gestation period of a person to a true parasite like a tapeworm, the worm lays its egg this is transported to the host, once inside the host they gestate in the egg, hatch and then lives within the host for the entirety of their life cycle deriving its nutrients from the host and needing to be hosted for survival after gestation, whether symbiotic or not. The person gestates and leaves the bearer it does not remain "hosted", it becomes and lives as its own separate entity. 

 

Your example of the "lung dweller" would most likely come under part of normal biological construction, just as the myriad of bacterial and biological organisms that exist within our bodies are part of what makes it work, most of them are needed and beneficial, it is only when they are detrimental they become redefined as "parasites", like worms, mites and others, these cause stress on the system which lead to many of the imbalances of symmetry within human bodies due to their nutrient consumption and toxin release at the hosts expense.    

 

Hopefully you can see the difference between a fetal stage as part of that species biological reproduction and a parasite.

 

I can align with Stefan's use of "parasite" in the context of Government creating dept at the expense of those yet to be born, it is parasitical, i can not see how someone, unless in a purely derogatory sense or malaligned mental projection of lifes process of reproduction could align a fetus with a parasite.  

[Wesley]

http://www.cephalopodiatrist.com/2012/10/why-babies-arent-actually-parasites.html