Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

[QUOTE="galerouth"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]OH MY F***KING.... you debating skills is around the same level as a YEC at christiansfourms....... And it isn't a good thing.alexside1

nice, i'm pretty sure that kid is awesome, too.

that's nice you don't want to play.

My troll meter is tingling. But to answer your question, I don't think it would fall under the classification of parasite. It is not detrimental to the host, rather the mother undergoes a natural human response using systems that were specifically designed to raise and develop a human fetus to maturity, It is not using the host for permanent placement but rather to reach a stage in which it can survive on it's own. But in the end it does not matter what you classify it as. The argument isn't what a fetus is but rather it is an argument on rather the fetus has a fundamental right to life, and that could be debated all night to no end so I see no need to even try. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]My troll meter is tingling. But to answer your question, I don't think it would fall under the classification of parasite. It is not detrimental to the host, rather the mother undergoes a natural human response using systems that were specifically designed to raise and develop a human fetus to maturity, It is not using the host for permanent placement but rather to reach a stage in which it can survive on it's own. But in the end it does not matter what you classify it as. The argument isn't what a fetus is but rather it is an argument on rather the fetus has a fundamental right to life, and that could be debated all night to no end so I see no need to even try. alexside1

Las Plagas! :o

lancea34

:lol:

i don't see that at all, they're still a human

You know what? You're a f*cking dumbass. EVERYONE BESIDES YOU IN OT KNOW THIS.alexside1

that's cute, if i'm so dumb, why can't prove the science that i psted wrong...proving the human fetus is a parasite?

it should be easy for you.

To be honest, I don't care if the fetus is a person or not. It doesn't alter my stance on abortion.

My troll meter is tingling. But to answer your question, ferrari2001

i have the same feeling about you.

I don't think it would fall under the classification of parasite. It is not detrimental to the host, rather the mother undergoes a natural human response using systems that were specifically designed to raise and develop a human fetus to maturity, It is not using the host for permanent placement but rather to reach a stage in which it can survive on it's own. ferrari2001

that's a cop-out, because the harms of pregnancy is also natural: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

many women develop heart problems because of pregnancy; too much blood pressure = heart problems.

it's a natural cause and effect.

you know that there are temporary parasites, right?

"temporary parasite one that lives free of its host during part of its life cycle."

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/parasite

But in the end it does not matter what you classify it as. The argument isn't what a fetus is but rather it is an argument on rather the fetus has a fundamental right to life, and that could be debated all night to no end so I see no need to even try. ferrari2001

NO, TFUD, you don't get to change the topic of MY thread...if you looked at my first post, you will see that the HUMAN fetus has no legal or moral right to life, BECAUSE NO HUMAN HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER.

THE HUMAN FETUS STILL IS A PARASITE AND THE WAY YOU WRITE SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE A SHILL FOR A THINK TANK.

To be honest, I don't care if the fetus is a person or not. It doesn't alter my stance on abortion.

BuryMe

actually, there is no such thing as a person intrinisically.

it's a philosophical concept.

a parasite?? lol no.GameGuy642003

then prove your point with science.

i don't see that at all, they're still a human

Legenkiller59

there are human parasites, do they exist in our reality.

[QUOTE="galerouth"]

[QUOTE="GameGuy642003"]a parasite?? lol no.thegerg

then prove your point with science.

i'm not going to entaiment your fallacies of ingoring science that i posted several times that proves you wrong, but you just want to repeat yourself because you are a troll.

repeat: A VIRUS LIVING ON YOUR NOSE HAIR, IS NOT AN INVASION.... BUT IT'S INSIDE YOUR BODY, IS IT?

YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT THIS SENTENCE THAT PROVES MY POINT: The invasion of a specific type of trophoblast (extravillous trophoblast) into the maternal uterus is a vital stage in the establishment of pregnancy: Failure of the trophoblast to invade sufficiently is important in the development of some cases of pre-eclampsia. Too firm an attachment may lead to placenta accreta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophoblast

the zygote ( A DIFFERENT ORGANISM) can exist inside the shell of the ovum, for a while and the body won't know about it, UNTIL IT NEEDS TO INVADE TO WOMAN'S BODY ( UTERUS) TO LIVE.

it clear you know nothing about science, nor you have a link to even prove your point.

alexside, you are the greatest.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]You know what? You're a f*cking dumbass. EVERYONE BESIDES YOU IN OT KNOW THIS.galerouth

that's cute, if i'm so dumb, why can't prove the science that i psted wrong...proving the human fetus is a parasite?

it should be easy for you.

[QUOTE="galerouth"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]You know what? You're a f*cking dumbass. EVERYONE BESIDES YOU IN OT KNOW THIS.alexside1

that's cute, if i'm so dumb, why can't prove the science that i psted wrong...proving the human fetus is a parasite?

it should be easy for you.

no, not really. why won't you try and then whine about being defeated.

[QUOTE="galerouth"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] The fact that you continue to claim that a zygote can invade a woman's body shows that you know little to nothing about science. thegerg

i'm not going to entaiment your fallacies of ingoring science that i posted several times that proves you wrong, but you just want to repeat yourself because you are a troll.

repeat: A VIRUS LIVING ON YOUR NOSE HAIR, IS NOT AN INVASION.... BUT IT'S INSIDE YOUR BODY, IS IT?

YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT THIS SENTENCE THAT PROVES MY POINT: The invasion of a specific type of trophoblast (extravillous trophoblast) into the maternal uterus is a vital stage in the establishment of pregnancy: Failure of the trophoblast to invade sufficiently is important in the development of some cases of pre-eclampsia. Too firm an attachment may lead to placenta accreta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophoblast

the zygote ( A DIFFERENT ORGANISM) can exist inside the shell of the ovum, for a while and the body won't know about it, UNTIL IT NEEDS TO INVADE TO WOMAN'S BODY ( UTERUS) TO LIVE.

it clear you know nothing about science, nor you have a link to even prove your point.

Here is a link to prove my point. It explains that a zygote is created in a woman's body. If a zygote is already in her body it is unable to invade that body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

Nothing I have said contradicts any science. You seem to be very confused.

it didn't invade her uterus, did it?

repeat: A VIRUS LIVING ON YOUR NOSE HAIR, IS NOT AN INVASION.... BUT IT'S INSIDE YOUR BODY, IS IT?

YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT THIS SENTENCE THAT PROVES MY POINT: The invasion of a specific type of trophoblast (extravillous trophoblast) into the maternal uterus is a vital stage in the establishment of pregnancy: Failure of the trophoblast to invade sufficiently is important in the development of some cases of pre-eclampsia. Too firm an attachment may lead to placenta accreta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophoblast

the zygote ( A DIFFERENT ORGANISM) can exist inside the shell of the ovum, for a while and the body won't know about it, UNTIL IT NEEDS TO INVADE TO WOMAN'S BODY ( UTERUS) TO LIVE.

it clear you know nothing about science, nor you have a link to even prove your point.

This is still going on? Is there any way that you can request a thread lock?

[QUOTE="galerouth"][QUOTE="thegerg"] You don't know what the word "invade" means, do you?thegerg

To make it easier: The one I quoted, dummy.

[QUOTE="galerouth"]

[QUOTE="GameGuy642003"]a parasite?? lol no.thegerg

then prove your point with science.

really, when i have two links proving my point?

"The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms:
It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy

" Due to its highly-negative charge, hCG may repel the immune cells of the mother, protecting the fetus during the first trimester. It has also been hypothesized that hCG may be a placental link for the development of local maternal immunotolerance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chorionic_gonadotropin

genius, if the zygote didn't INVADE A WOMAN'S BODY then HCG and NEUROKININ B are moot because once the woman's body recogized it ....her body wouldn't try to kill it, huh?

next time, try science.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="galerouth"] me or droid?whipassmt

To make it easier: The one I quoted, dummy.

that's cute, even though i got science on my side.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] The one claiming that something created in and by a woman's body in a manner in which it's designed to to be created is invading that body.

To make it easier: The one I quoted, dummy.

galerouth

that's cute, even though i got science on my side.

ehhhh if you put it that way

It can't be a parasite because a woman's body goes into "must protect and nurish this baby" mode automatically. The fetus does not siphon what it needs, the woman's body creates and provides.

It can't be a parasite because a woman's body goes into "must protect and nurish this baby" mode automatically. The fetus does not siphon what it needs, the woman's body creates and provides.

greeneye59

that doesn't sound like a baby to me

To be honest, I don't care if the fetus is a person or not. It doesn't alter my stance on abortion.

BuryMe

It can't be a parasite because a woman's body goes into "must protect and nurish this baby" mode automatically. The fetus does not siphon what it needs, the woman's body creates and provides.

greeneye59

really? prepare for science.

FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because the ****fication of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:

as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B and HCG--- so her body doesn't kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophoblast

"The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms:
It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy

" Due to its highly-negative charge, hCG may repel the immune cells of the mother, protecting the fetus during the first trimester. It has also been hypothesized that hCG may be a placental link for the development of local maternal immunotolerance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chorionic_gonadotropin

"The woman's immune system can attack the embryo and placenta via attack T-cells, blood complement, and antibodies. The embryo signals the placenta to produce indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase, which catabolizes the tryptophan in the woman's body. Starved of this necessary amino acid, the attack T-cells have to go into latency to survive, though the woman's blood complement and antibodies can continue to attack."

slmccoyApril 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb250/PDFs/L28p3.Munn.pdf

--- I'M USING THIS ABOVE BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF HOW THE HUMAN PARASITE ATTACKS A WOMAN'S L- TRYPTOPHAN LEVELS, THAT I CAN FIND.

EVEN THOUGH, NUTMEG AND BLACK COHOSH ARE A WELL-KNOWN ABORTIFACIENTS BECAUSE OF THEIR HIGH L-TRYPTOPHAN LEVELS -- SO THE CLAIM ABOVE MAKES SENSE TO ME.


"It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."
http://www.answers.com/topic/symbiosis -- Gale's Science of Everyday Things.

just like a parasitic twin --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin

"an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite

pregnancy CAUSES HARM: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

THE FETUS DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO FEEL PAIN --WHEN MOST ABORTIONS OCCUR.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/25/does-the-fetus-feel-pain-uk-report-says-no.html

lol this topicZumaJones07

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="galerouth"] wtf are you talking about? galerouth

Yes it has happen already, you just deny that it did happen and keep reposting debunk sh*t.

Yes it has happen already, you just deny that it did happen and keep reposting debunk sh*t.alexside1

that's cute, so i'll repeat: sigh, in reality that hasn't happen yet... but i got more science to prove my point: the human fetus is a parasite: "The woman's immune system can attack the embryo and placenta via attack T-cells, blood complement, and antibodies. The embryo signals the placenta to produce indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase, which catabolizes the tryptophan in the woman's body. Starved of this necessary amino acid, the attack T-cells have to go into latency to survive, though the woman's blood complement and antibodies can continue to attack." slmccoy April 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb250/PDFs/L28p3.Munn.pdf

so since no one proved the old science that i posted wrong, because it's solid....try to debunk that. prove me wrong about the indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase,

My god, this thread is still going.o_Ometroidprime55

It's not a human.

That's not an opinion.

It's not a human.

That's not an opinion.

TopTierHustler