Is a fetus considered a parasite? I've heard this argument made by pro choicers but the argument sounds so retarded and isn't backed up by anything.

>>16693768 (OP)
>is a joke to be taken seriously?
No. You mock those that do this shit.

>>16693781
No. There are genuinely people making the argument that a fetus is classified as a parasite.
https://youtu.be/WV29R1M25n8?si=WByWhQY0lCaXhPs3
https://x.com/Djdouble001/status/1911968905536708799?t=f4FmR5VSmPTc6UkPlt1WcQ&s=19

They genuinely believe this.

>kill birthing person with fetus parasite
>double murder

No, but only because the technical definition of parasite requires it be a different species from the host.

A fetus parasitizes its parent, but it is not a parasite.

>>16693800
Intra species parasitism exists.

>>16693811
Ah, but not by parasites.

Retarded argument. One is the result of the human reproductive system performing its function, the other is a foreign organism invading the body.

>>16693768 (OP)
>Is a fetus considered a parasite?
What race is it?

>>16693949
>One is the result of the human reproductive system performing its function
No, babies are made from fertilization of a sperm and an egg outside the body. The human reproductive system isn't involved.
>the other is a foreign organism invading the body
So like via implantation?

Also by this logic, a parasite born in the body wouldn't be a parasite, which is silly.

>>16694000
>The human reproductive system isn't involved

>>16693768 (OP)
>Is a fetus considered a parasite? I've heard this argument made by pro choicers

>>16693790
>charlie kirk

>>16694027
I mean it isn't. Ovaries and testes don't exactly play much of a role in fertilization and implementation.

If you send your kid to college, you don't get a degree.

Poorly worded but the argument is this.

Does the government have the right to force you to give up your bone marrow to someone else to save their life?
Does the government have the right to force you to give up your kidney to someone else to save their life?
Does the government have the right to force a pregnant woman to give up her life's blood to someone else to save their life?

If you said no to the first two, why do you not say yes to the third? The right to choose is simple. You cannot force someone, even at the cost of another's life, to carry an infant in their womb.

The problem is that show is a joke. It's not experts he's arguing against. It's college students and random dudes that sign up for a 'debate'. You want a real debate? Put Charlie Kirk up against Cecile Richards or Dr. Meera Shah

I guarantee he would get owned but you just want your armchair ideas validated by talk show hosts.

>>16693768 (OP)
I'm pro choice myself but this argument is just semantics, reductive and not even accurate. A fetus is biologically dependent on the mother's body to develop and survive, but this alone doesn't satisfy the definition of a parasite. It's not a foreign, pathological organism that invaded the body as a part of its survival strategy. Pregnancy is a physiological process and closer to symbiosis in a biological sense, considering that procreation is the biological imperative of all life.

If we were to base denial of personhood on whether one is dependent on others for survival, we'd have to make killing the elderly and neets legal.

>>16693768 (OP)
a teratoma or a cancer isn't a parasite, but a fetus in fetu or aforementioned should generally be removed if they impact the wellbeing of the host significantly.
Just because a fetus is typically confined to a uterus doesn't mean, on a technical level, it's any different.
Now, one has the chance to become an independent human being, while all the others are neoplasms with a degree of altered copy numbers or some wide divergence at a genomic level. You'd be hard-pressed to call even a fetus in fetu teratoma a human being, unlike even the most fucked up child on the basis of genome alone.

>Is a fetus considered a parasite?
Etymologically no, not a different species
>Is it technically parasitic like a tumor?
Yes
>Is it a tumor?
Hell no, even cystic teratomas of malformed fetuses rapidly degenerate their own DNA as the immune system fights it's growth

They're not using the biological definition of parasite, obviously. Pure autism to not understand this.

>>16694045
>Is it technically parasitic like a tumor?
>Yes
Wrong, the mother's body enables it, rather than trying to get rid of it. Meaning they share a goal, so it's symbiotic.

>>16693768 (OP)
Playing with words is a very NPC thing to do. A fetus is clearly not the same as a parasite regardless of how the word might be defined. NPCs have no subjective experience or true understanding of the reality which words represent. They only know words.

>>16693768 (OP)
I'd say yes if anon is the final result

>>16694134
>degenerate their own DNA as the immune system fights it's growth
I already explained this, but fetuses can become tumors anon

If fetus was different species (sometimes it is, unfortunately), it would be commensalist relationship and not parasitic.

>>16694144
Definitions are important. By definition, parasitism requires different species.
If anything, a nigger fetus in white woman could technically be parasitic.

>>16694199
I never bothered to look up the definition. My sentiment is correct in other cases. The thing is. A lot of words are not fully defined, because its pretty obvious what they meant and never needed writing down. Well at least that was the case until NPCs started manipulating words to twist reality.

>>16694220
In biology, most things are clearly defined, especially if you stick to latin. You cannot manipulate real scientific terms. If you ever notice that they were modified, maybe it wasn't scientific after all, because 2 + 2 = 4 survived milleniums and isn't even considered a science.

>>16694041
It's a good argument, but one could argue it's a false equivalency if the pregnancy is due to a deliberate action or negligence on the part of the parent. The government forcing you to donate bone marrow might seem more reasonable if:
1. You're the only person who can donate said bone marrow to save this person's life, and
2. You're the reason they need the bone marrow to survive.

I'm still not saying the government should be able to force a medical procedure, just answering your question: "why do you not say yes to the third?"

You can see the cynical and twisted attitude of modern society in this argument and this thread, where pro-abortion advocates reach for any straw to justify their behavior. A child is quite literally part of the mother, and genetically part of the father, and not just physically but on a metaphysical level as the offspring is a direct succession of the parents. The offspring and parents are not really separate organisms, although obviously they are individual and sovereign, they are the same organism at different stages of life.

>>16693768 (OP)
No, it's a squatter.
Abortion rights are Private Property rights. No trespassing, get fucked.
>>16694444
>on a metaphysical level
>>>/x/ stay on your containment board, you fucking schizoid.

>>16694042
>If we were to base denial of personhood on whether one is dependent on others for survival, we'd have to make killing the elderly and neets legal.
Cutting off the elderly/neets is legal. And an abortion can be performed by cutting off a fetus. If it's at a stage of development where cutting off would guarantee death then there's no good argument for why you couldn't just directly kill it instead to reduce suffering and make removal faster.

Bump

>>16694041
nonsense, its a human rights issue.

do humans have a right to life? we all seem to agree; so what we're really talking about is when do these rights begin to apply? any answer beyond "the moment the human begins to exist" is arbitrary. its a fact of biology that a complete and unique human DNA is produced at the moment of conception (all the biological markers that distinguish a human from any other living thing) therefore it is rational to conclude that human rights begin at the moment of conception.

>>16695602
>Do humans have a right to life?
That's not the issue here. The issue is how responsible the mother and the medical profession are for the life (even if considered a human life since the moment of conception) growing in the mother's womb. Do braindead human vegetables have a right to life support? Most would say no. Does a life in the womb have a right to the life support of the mother's womb? Similar, if not same answer.

>>16695602
>do humans have a right to life?
not a human yet

>>16693790
Those are not people, those are demons.

>>16695675
>Most would say no.
bullshit. in every 1st world hospital, unless the patient themselves (or their primary next of kin) has changed their medical status to DNR (do not resuscitate), it is assumed that the patient wants to live (based on right to life) and hospital staff will use heroic measures to save their life. it takes at minimum 30 days of no brain activity, no automatic process (breathing, heartbeat) and no improvement, then a review by the hospital ethics committee to make the decision to place the patient on comfort care (aka hospice aka let them die).

>>16695685
>not a human yet
ok big brain, if its not human what species is it? when does it become human? what makes it human?

>>16695733
>All that, but in the end, the hospital still sometimes lets them die
It really is a very similar concept, but seemingly much more fleshed out ethically and medically.

>>16693768 (OP)
Noooooo, it's not a parasite it's got a whole ok like if anything the parents genitals are parasites then

>>16695757
great, so you think a woman should have to exhaust all possible options (adoption, family assistance, etc) and that there should be an ethics committee review before getting an abortion? sounds fair

>>16694533
>Cutting off the elderly/neets is legal.
No, it's not. Both the elderly and neets are allowed free access to public services that are maintained through taxes. You can make the argument that the retired elderly are entitled to them, but no such argument for neets. The fact is they're parasites to society so the only way to "cut them off" would be to either kill or deport them, or deprive them legal access to any and all public services, including emergency medical care. Not even prison works because it's also paid for in taxes.

>>16695733
>if its not human what species is it? when does it become human? what makes it human?
Not that Anon but it shouldn't be considered in terms of "human", but "person". Right to live is obviously not granted to any living cell with homo sapiens DNA, if that was the case we couldn't even ethically as much as pierce the skin to make an injection, or amputate limbs. We grant rights to persons, and what defines personhood is going to be subjective, but it's generally agreed that the ability for concious thought would be the bare minimum to even begin considering if something might be a person, and a fetus doesn't develop a nervous system even remotely close to being capable of concious thought before at least 20ish week.

>>16695822
>if that was the case we couldn't even ethically as much as pierce the skin to make an injection, or amputate limbs
that would seem to be a composition fallacy; just because the whole organism is a human doesn't mean each part is also human. if you amputate an arm, the arm won't grow into another human. but, a fertilized egg will because it is a complete organism. in fact, by any biological metric, a fertilized egg is a human in its earliest development phase, is it not? how else would you classify this organism?
>We grant rights to persons, and what defines personhood is going to be subjective
ok, if personhood is subjective, then so are rights, aren't they? i mean, are there humans that aren't persons? who decides when someone gets personhood? could the same authority also revoke personhood?
>but it's generally agreed that the ability for concious thought would be the bare minimum
can you objectively and unambiguously define conscious thought? how do you observe, measure, and test for it? does a person in a coma have concious thought? if not, does that mean they lose personhood? what if they're just unconcious? zooted out on drugs?

the more you ground your philosophy in uncertainty, the weaker it becomes. how did the founders of the US ground their philosophy on human rights? perhaps start there

>>16695849
>that would seem to be a composition fallacy; just because the whole organism is a human doesn't mean each part is also human.
That would be correct, and it also doesn't mean a fetus is a human.
> but, a fertilized egg will because it is a complete organism.
The keyword here is "will". This only speaks about potential, and we don't grant rights based on potential. We don't let kids drink alcohol because they have the potential to grown into adults, and we don't let first year med students do procedures usupervised because they have the potential to become doctors.
>in fact, by any biological metric, a fertilized egg is a human in its earliest development phase, is it not? how else would you classify this organism?
n biology, an organism is typically defined as a living system capable of independent metabolism. A fetus does not satisfy that definition, but again, this is not relevant to personhood.
>ok, if personhood is subjective, then so are rights, aren't they?
Yes, this is pretty evident given they vary from culture to culture. You can claim rights are innate and not granted, but that doesn't change that what these innate rights are and how they apply remains subjective.
> i mean, are there humans that aren't persons?
Yes, the most clear cut example would be permanent vegetative patients, for example those with only their brain stem intact. They are technically alive and retain biological functions and involuntary reflexes that allow them to remain alive, such as breathing, heartbeat and even sleep cycles, but there is no structures that would allow for concious thought. The person is effectively gone. And, in most countries, law allows either withdrawal of life support or euthanasia in those cases.

1/2

>>16695849
>>16695856
>who decides when someone gets personhood? could the same authority also revoke personhood?
At the end of the day it's every individual. Then there are governments that can enforce their authority with force. You either follow the law because you agree with it, or because you're afraid of the punishment. You break it for personal gain or because you fundamentally don't agree with it, to the point of civil disobedience. But this is a different topic entirely.
>can you objectively and unambiguously define conscious thought?
This a good question, and the trur answer is we cannot, but we can define what concious thought isn't, and it is fact that conciousness has never been observed in any way without a sufficently developed nervous system.
> does a person in a coma have concious thought? if not, does that mean they lose personhood? what if they're just unconcious? zooted out on drugs?
Also a good question i have considered at some point, and the fundamental difference is that such a person has already developed personhood that is only temporarily suspended. It's not a case of potential personhood that is yet to develop at all.
>the more you ground your philosophy in uncertainty, the weaker it becomes.
Everything is always granted with whatever knowledge we have at any gain point, and to the best of our knowledge, a fetus is simply not capable of having concious thought before 20ish week of development.
>how did the founders of the US ground their philosophy on human rights? perhaps start there
On what grounds did these founders base their philosphy, other than
>lmao I feel like it
Don't use arguments from authority, they lack merit. If their arguments are strong they will stand on their own, present them if that's the case.

>>16695819
Fetuses aren't denied public services. What even are you fucking arguing?

>>16695849
>how did the founders of the US ground their philosophy on human rights
Rank hypocrisy.

>>16695862
Work on your reading comprehension. If we were to base denial of personhood on whether one is dependent on others for survival, and that would allow to the mother to withdraw support from the fetus, then logically we would also be allowed to withdraw any and all support in the form of public services from neets and the elderly that are entirely dependent on them.

>>16693811
There's also symbiosis

>>16694476
>No trespassing, get fucked
It's amazing to know that there's something called squatter's rights!

>>16695675
>Do braindead human vegetables have a right to life support?
In a resource limited world? Perhaps.
In a resource abundant world (or a post-scarce society) it's feasible for bodies to be retained on life support for the purpose of brain transplantation.

>>16695870
>>Do braindead human vegetables have a right to life support?
No, if someone is in coma, and NOBODY cares if they die, they should be put to death.

according to cambridge dictionary;
an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant of a different type and feeds from it
is the definition of a parasite.

highlight" different type" here. the fetus is a human just like the mother. therefore, it does not fully match the definition of a parasite and is not a parasite. pro-choicers are wrong on this one

>>16695864
>If we were to base denial of personhood on whether one is dependent on others for survival, and that would allow to the mother to withdraw support from the fetus, then logically we would also be allowed to withdraw any and all support in the form of public services from neets and the elderly that are entirely dependent on them.
Except, again, fetuses can't be denied public services. You're equivocating life support and public services.

Do you know what you can cut off to the elderly/neets? Fucking FOOD.