Political Crossfire Forums

[Zybthranger314]

Selfish_Meme wrote: An embryo/fetus exists not only because of its perch in the host, but because the host actively changes its relationship to facillitate it. That does not happen with a parasite. The body welcomes an embryo/fetus and changes to the needs of the embryo/fetus.

All true. More reasons why it is not a parasite. But it is more like a parasite than I originaly thought. But it is still parasitic. Parasitic = having characteristics of a parasite (not necessarily all). Parasite = An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism

[Selfish_Meme]

Also the host generates an embryo, or at least the precursor, which does not happen with a parasite, and the connotation of parasite is something that is taken rather than given.

[JayDubya]

Zybthranger314 wrote: Selfish Meme, reading your view pleases me ... me gusta.

Before reading this thread, and even after starting to read it, I never thought of an embryo as a parasite. But then JayDubya provided the link to the definition of parasite. After reading that, it became quite clear that an embryo is essentially a parasite. Even though it technically isn't, as the host and parasite are defined to be different species, I will now think of embryos as a parasite. And it definitely is parasitic. That descriptor is exact and true.

What sort of barmy logic are you applying?! >_<

By definition a parasitic relationship cannot occur between two members of the same species.

Furthermore, a parasitic relationship is one that causes harm. There are many other types of symbiosis. The infant does not inflict any real harm on the mother besides discomfort and a little nausea.

Is pregnancy easy or fun? No. Is it a parasitic relationship? Certainly not.

Here's another something for you to read since a simple scientific definition was not enough for you.

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

* * *

* * *

If you want to play semantics and suggest that any relationship in which one benefits from causing another discomfort is parasitic, then we can classify any number of real-world situations as being semi-parasitic in nature.

I don't approve of such cavalier use of scientific terminology. Even so, we're specifically talking about biological science in this topic, and the term is clearly not relevant when talking about natural mammalian embryology.

[Zybthranger314]

JayDubya wrote: Zybthranger314 wrote: Selfish Meme, reading your view pleases me ... me gusta.

Before reading this thread, and even after starting to read it, I never thought of an embryo as a parasite. But then JayDubya provided the link to the definition of parasite. After reading that, it became quite clear that an embryo is essentially a parasite. Even though it technically isn't, as the host and parasite are defined to be different species, I will now think of embryos as a parasite. And it definitely is parasitic. That descriptor is exact and true.

What sort of barmy logic are you applying?! >_<

Out of curiosity, what does barmy mean?

JayDubya wrote: By definition a parasitic relationship cannot occur between two members of the same species.

I do believe I pointed that out ... oh yes, there it is, in bold because you apparently missed it last time

JayDubya wrote: Furthermore, a parasitic relationship is one that causes harm. There are many other types of symbiosis. The infant does not inflict any real harm on the mother besides discomfort and a little nausea.

I know you're trying to persuade me that it is not a parasite, but you're not succeeding. You have just said that the embryo does in fact cause slight harm to the mother, which I had not considered before, and now further strengthens my opinion


JayDubya wrote: Is pregnancy easy or fun? No. Is it a parasitic relationship? Certainly not.

I obviously disagree

Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism ... also causing harm to the host

Does an embryo grow in the host? Yes
Does the embryo get nutrients from the host? Yes
Is the embryo sheltered in the host? Yes
Is the embryo a different species? No
Does the embryo cause harm to the host? Slight, but yes, according to JayDubya

Is the relationship parasitic (parasitic = having many qualities of a parasite) ... at a 4 out of 5 I would have to say yes.

JayDubya wrote: Here's another something for you to read since a simple scientific definition was not enough for you.

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

There are several things that are technically wrong in this.

I would never have described the mother/embryo relationship as parasitic, but after looking at the definitions, I am forced to admit that technically, it is very close to being a parasite, and is parasitic.

[Zybthranger314]

Apologies for using a second post, but this was edited in as I was working on my first post.

JayDubya wrote:

* * *

If you want to play semantics and suggest that any relationship in which one benefits from causing another discomfort is parasitic, then we can classify any number of real-world situations as being semi-parasitic in nature.

I completemly agree that many relationships are parasitic

JayDubya wrote: I don't approve of such cavalier use of scientific terminology.

I'm simply looking at definitions, and using them. Don't blame me, blame the definitions for being open to this use.

[JayDubya]

Zybthranger314 wrote: JayDubya wrote: Zybthranger314 wrote: Selfish Meme, reading your view pleases me ... me gusta.

Before reading this thread, and even after starting to read it, I never thought of an embryo as a parasite. But then JayDubya provided the link to the definition of parasite. After reading that, it became quite clear that an embryo is essentially a parasite. Even though it technically isn't, as the host and parasite are defined to be different species, I will now think of embryos as a parasite. And it definitely is parasitic. That descriptor is exact and true.

What sort of barmy logic are you applying?! >_<

Out of curiosity, what does barmy mean?

JayDubya wrote: By definition a parasitic relationship cannot occur between two members of the same species.

I do believe I pointed that out ... oh yes, there it is, in bold because you apparently missed it last time

JayDubya wrote: Furthermore, a parasitic relationship is one that causes harm. There are many other types of symbiosis. The infant does not inflict any real harm on the mother besides discomfort and a little nausea.

I know you're trying to persuade me that it is not a parasite, but you're not succeeding. You have just said that the embryo does in fact cause slight harm to the mother, which I had not considered before, and now further strengthens my opinion


JayDubya wrote: Is pregnancy easy or fun? No. Is it a parasitic relationship? Certainly not.

I obviously disagree

Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism ... also causing harm to the host

Does an embryo grow in the host? Yes
Does the embryo get nutrients from the host? Yes
Is the embryo sheltered in the host? Yes
Is the embryo a different species? No
Does the embryo cause harm to the host? Slight, but yes, according to JayDubya

Is the relationship parasitic (parasitic = having many qualities of a parasite) ... at a 4 out of 5 I would have to say yes.

JayDubya wrote: Here's another something for you to read since a simple scientific definition was not enough for you.

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

There are several things that are technically wrong in this.

I would never have described the mother/embryo relationship as parasitic, but after looking at the definitions, I am forced to admit that technically, it is very close to being a parasite, and is parasitic.

Barmy is a semi-archaic term used mostly by Brits. It's synonymous with daft, loony, irregular, or insane.

Again, your logic is barmy because you recognize that an implanted mammalian embryo is not a parasite, but persist in calling it parasitic. When in the context of discussing specific biology the term "parasitic" no longer means "similar to a parasite," it means "this IS a parasite."

You're using one denotation of the term that favors your belief system while ignoring the connotation in which you are using it.

We're not dealing in abstract concepts or metaphors here. We're not trying to argue about whether or not Capitalism (or Communism) is like unto a parasitic relationship between government and the worker. We're talking science here, however. Technical writing, no room for semantics or flowery language.

[Cyro]

Zybthranger314 wrote: Selfish Meme, reading your view pleases me ... me gusta.

Before reading this thread, and even after starting to read it, I never thought of an embryo as a parasite. But then JayDubya provided the link to the definition of parasite. After reading that, it became quite clear that an embryo is essentially a parasite. Even though it technically isn't, as the host and parasite are defined to be different species, I will now think of embryos as a parasite. And it definitely is parasitic. That descriptor is exact and true.

Seen as how I was the first one to use the term 'parasite', I'll hold my hands up and admit to my misuse of it's full meaning.

However that doesn't change my stand point on the issue.

[Zybthranger314]

JayDubya wrote: Barmy is a semi-archaic term used mostly by Brits. It's synonymous with daft, loony, irregular, or insane.

Neat

JayDubya wrote: You're using one denotation of the term that favors your belief system while ignoring the connotation in which you are using it.


I'm pointing out that a description of an embryo (parasite) is more true than I thought it was after looking at the definition.

And if it comes down to me using a word because of it's accurate definition in my discussion and not using a word because people use an unstated incorrect definition when thinking of the word, I'll stick to the accurate word as my arguement clearly states the definition, and that is all I am referring to.

JayDubya wrote: Again, your logic is barmy because you recognize that an implanted mammalian embryo is not a parasite, but persist in calling it parasitic. When in the context of discussing specific biology the term "parasitic" no longer means "similar to a parasite," it means "this IS a parasite."

We're not dealing in abstract concepts or metaphors here. We're not trying to argue about whether or not Capitalism (or Communism) is like unto a parasitic relationship between government and the worker. We're talking science here, however. Technical writing, no room for semantics or flowery language.

I thought this was discussing personal views on abortion? Oh wait, it is. And is there something wrong with using dictionary definitions when constructing arguements? I guess so. But for your sanity, in this thread, I will no longer use the term 'parasitic', intead using 'very similar to a parasite' or 'almost technically parasitic' ... it'll take longer to type but it is still accurate, which is good.

[Selfish_Meme]

Zybthranger314 wrote: And if it comes down to me using a word because of it's accurate definition in my discussion and not using a word because people use an unstated incorrect definition when thinking of the word, I'll stick to the accurate word as my arguement clearly states the definition, and that is all I am referring to.
:lol: what I was going on about earlier, english is a bad language for definitions, not because it doesn't have enough but because it has too many!

[Cyro]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Zybthranger314 wrote: And if it comes down to me using a word because of it's accurate definition in my discussion and not using a word because people use an unstated incorrect definition when thinking of the word, I'll stick to the accurate word as my arguement clearly states the definition, and that is all I am referring to.
:lol: what I was going on about earlier, english is a bad language for definitions, not because it doesn't have enough but because it has too many!

I like having a vast array of Synonyms to choose from :twisted: