Perhaps a symbiont.
Well I never used the used the word parasite, but I did use the word host. I wasn’t thinking of “host” in the strictly biological sense, but rather host as in “one that furnishes facilities and resources for a function or event” ie, I am the hostess for the fetal party going on in my uterus.
As far as I understand a fetus cannot survive on its own, outside of a female body. So how can a fetus be describes as autonomous?
A fetus is only “autonomous” in that it’s own genetics direct its growth, not the mother’s genetics.
“Host” is a perfectly good word for us to use in everyday common English. In super-strict scientific jargon, it isn’t quite right. Same trouble with “symbiont.” Not quite right, if one is gonna be a scientific jargon pedant.
Of course, only assholes play the pedant game. O.J. Simpson murdered Ron Goldman, and that is that.
Good to know that we agree on something. 
Perhaps the idea which becomes a law/rule starts with one person, the the rule/law itself doesn’t. Not in this country.
And your own cite still says you are wrong.
Sure. None of those negate the possibility of a pregnancy happening, unless the the post-hysterectomy woman also had her ovaries and tubes removed.
You haven’t managed to come up with a fact that says that a clump of cells is a human.
In vitro creates a big ethical problem.
I would not compell implantation, but would forbid destruction, in the general reality of now.
If sayin that helps you sleep better, then: OK.
I have no explanation that you would accept given the limitations of an anonymous internet forum and your own scientific limitations.
(Hint: direct killing is wrong)
It’s not a dictionary battle, it’s scientific terminology.
Are wanted children not parasites, then? Is an 8-month fetus a parasite?
Just after delivery but still with the chord?
Again, you need two different species.
That meanig of host would be appropriate. Viability is being pushed back all the time and an artificial uterus is not completely science fiction.
[QUOTE]
.
That’s exactly my point.
Could you point to where?
OK, no uterus, no ovaries.
Can she?
self-regulation, distinct DNA.
If that euphemism ever takes hold, just shoot me.
It’s an umbilical cord, not a chord.
A minor point, but a key one.
Same thing. Scientific terminology is not, itself, subject to scientific rules. There is no experiment you can perform that will determine whether or not a fetus is a parasite, since the word itself can be defined either way. At this point in time, the formal definition precludes a fetus from being a parasite. This is not a scientific rule, but merely a convention of terminology.
Once a child is born, his parasitic tendencies are much more easily controlled. He can simply be given away. The 8-month old fetus cannot be prevented from the parasitic behavior; it is an inescapable part of its nature. (No one, either on the pro-choice or the pro-life side, favors the inducing of premature birth as a means of ridding a woman of an unwanted fetus.) As long as blood is flowing from the mother’s body, through the placenta and the cord, then the parasitic behavior continues. Once the cord is cut, that behavior is over.
.
Humor. It is a difficult concept.
I already did, when you first posted the cite.
Can she what? I’m not going to be able to follow what you are talking about if you keep cutting posts into tiny pieces.
Self-regulation doesn’t apply to a fetus and distinct DNA doesn’t a human make. Your problem is that you are taking facts and using them to support your preconceived beliefs, rather than doing it the right way.
I would have said it does. The fetal DNA is governing fetal growth.
It doesn’t have any feedback capability (that I know of; maybe someone can set me straight here?) with regard to the mother’s body. i.e., if the fetus is terribly short of calcium, it doesn’t have any way to signal the mother’s body to send more. The placental barrier is a pretty exclusive “firewall.”
I may be wrong, and I may be mistaking your point. (I am not siding with Magica de Spell or whatever.)
Try telling that to the child born drug-addicted, with fetal alcohol syndrome, or no arms because their mother took Thalidomide, or women who ended up infertile cause their mothers took DES to carry them to term.
ETA: And an anti-abortion protestor actually told me there’s a bill trying to make “post-birth abortions” illegal. Talk about your wacky terminology (and a great oxymoron).
So if fetuses were removed by C-section and then frozen, it would be all right.
Of all the ridiculous statements made by anyone, this really gets me on my soap box. “Have the baby and simply give it away.” I can think of nothing crueler than forcing a woman to give birth and hand the baby over to strangers like a sack of dirty laundry. The woman suffers and the child suffers. Adoption is NOT a magical la-la land where everything goes perfect.
Yes, you’re wrong. The feedback mechanisms are poorly understood, but probably work in two ways: hormones and receptors in the capillaries of the placenta. While the mother and baby blood shouldn’t mix, hormones, nutrients and wastes carry information from one circulatory system to the other.
The fetus gets washed in hormones that are made by the mother’s body which govern growth and development, and quite likely even things such as gender expression and sexual orientation later in life. Epigenetics starts even before conception, and stresors in the mother’s environment influence not just natal development, but obesity, nurturing behaviors and personality of the person to be. Now, go apologize to your mother for minimizing her body’s hard work making you. 
This was in the context of regulation of fetal growth, not in the context of toxins or drug interactions. And it turns out I was wrong (see below) but not in the sense of your points. (They are valid points: horrible things do pass the placental barrier.)
I agree! I am pro-choice. Adoption is an alternative. It is not the alternative, and it is not the ideal solution. It is a choice. It will be right for some, and not right for others. Please believe me, I do not imagine that the possibility of adoption in any way makes the pro-life viewpoint valid.
Grin! My mother, alas, is long beyond my reach, but I will definitely honor her, in my mind, for doing a lot of hard work indeed, both pre and post natal. (I’m also glad she chose to stop smoking during pregnancy!)
Thank’ee for setting me straight. This was something I had not known. I had thought the embryonic/fetal development was entirely self-regulated. (Leaving aside such very obvious things as maternal starvation, or, as noted above, alcohol use, smoking, drug use, etc.) The duty of the boards has been upheld, and the world’s ignorance (and mine) pushed back one notch.
I got an anti-abortion tract this weekend that said “Six days after conception, the baby attaches himself to the wall of his mother’s womb…”
I cannot begin to tell you what is wrong with that statement.
I have visions of an anatomically correct fetus the size of a BB bouncing around in delight. “Oh hell, it’s Day Six, gotta attach.”
Honest question - can you give me an example of a pro-choice wackjob extremist? Perhaps the Chinese government? The are accused of forcing abortions on unwilling mothers, but I can’t think of anything a pro-choice person has said in the past 20 years that was more extreme than “my body, my decision.”
A lot of pro-choicers are shrill, but few are crazy.
BTW, if you haven’t already, see Citizen Ruth – skewers both sides hilariously.
You cannot image some of the stuff in those tracts. It makes a logician’s head spin worse than Linda Blair’s! Check out this site.