The Instigator
galerouth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
S98-SAMMAN
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

the human fetus is a parasite according to science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,413 times Debate No: 18378
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

galerouth

Pro

the human fetus is a parasite according to SYMBIOSIS:

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

like an parasitic twin, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin

pregnancy harms women, http://www.thelizlibrary.org...

"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...

"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...

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
S98-SAMMAN

Con

I look forward to this debate. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate with you.

=====Definitions=====

par��a��site
Noun/�ˆpar�™�Œs��t/
1. An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
2. A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

give/giv/
Verb: Freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone); hand over to: "they gave her water".

some��thing/�ˆs�™m�ŒTHiNG/
Pronoun: A thing that is unspecified or unknown: "we stopped for something to eat".

=====Argument=====

Now we must give both of these definitions our full attention. I will be focusing mainly on the second definition for my argument. Now my opponent states that the human fetus is a parasite but I do not believe it to be so. Notice that the definition 2 states, "gives nothing in return." but is this statement true? We must delve into the semantics of this statement. I have defined "give" above. The fetus actually does give "something," defined above. It gives pain, weight, feelings, emotions and more. I will not be using any sources as I do not feel this to be necessary because this is common sense. Also I must state that Wikipedia is not a valid source, sorry.

=====Overall=====
I have refuted my opponents attacks and made attacks of my own successfully. For all of the reasons I have stated, please vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
galerouth

Pro

S98-SAMMAN, like wise.

a quote from my opponent: "I will be focusing mainly on the second definition for my argument."

it's clear that my opponent used an red herring fallacy from changing the focus of a fetus being a parasite through a scientific point-of view as suggested by the proposition, "THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE," to one that's just a mere opinion: "A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return." my opponent also ignored the definition of a parasite that i posted in round one, as well, as the scientific evidence to backing up my claim and whole the reason why this debate exist.

what my opponent may not understand is, a could-be very painful condition called, pregnancy osteoporosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.medterms.com...
http://www.ehow.com...

as we all know the fetus is needs calcium and other minerals to survive and development, but where does these minerals come from? the woman's diet, but since many women around the world are malnourished and the fetus needs these minerals, these women's bodies will breakdown their own bones and bleach the minerals from them as a survival mechanism...but i'm pretty sure the fetus being a parasite will take a good chunk of those minerals too; thus proving my definition accurate and the human fetus is a parasite.

"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...

to quote my opponent: " I have refuted my opponents attacks and made attacks of my own successfully, For all of the reasons I have stated,"

as we all can see this is far from the truth as it can possibly get.
S98-SAMMAN

Con

Thank you for a timely response.

=====REFUTATIONS=====
My opponent made very few attacks to my case and backed his case up very little with only opinion. Nevertheless I shall refute everything he has said.

My opponent said that I changed the topic from factual point of view to "...one that's just a mere opinion," but he never gave an example of what he is referring to. I, personally have reviewed my case and I have found nothing of the sort, but if you have found otherwise, please post it in the next round.
Also, I did not ignore my opponents definition, rather I provided my own, just like my opponent did to mine. Just because my opponent had the opening argument, doesn't mean he is allowed to lay down ground definitions that he expects me not to change. Definitions are a major decider in this debate and I refuse to obey my opponents definitions without providing my own.
Once again my opponent insults me at the end of his case proving he does not wish this to be a friendly debate.

=====ARGUMENT=====
Now my opponent has obviously over looked the obvious.
My opponent stated, "...may not understand is, a could-be very painful condition called, pregnancy osteoporosis."
Notice he said, a could-be very painful condition. There are two major flaws I have noticed in this statement. Firstly since my opponent and I are both examining the this debate with definitions, a potential problem should not be counted against me. Also he admitted himself that a human fetus can cause pain therefore giving the pregnant women something. That means that the human fetus is not, by definition, a parasite.
Also notice that my opponent continues to offer more definitions for parasite and he completely ignores mine.

=====OVERVIEW=====
I have, once again refuted all of my opponents attacks, provided my own attacks, and I have defended my case. I strongly urge a CON vote as I have obviously done a better job in this debate.

Thank you
-S98samman!!!
Debate Round No. 2
galerouth

Pro

to quote my opponent: 'My opponent made very few attacks to my case and backed his case up very little with only opinion. Nevertheless I shall refute everything he has said."

well, if my opponent wanted to be intellectually honest, my opponent would say: " My opponent made very few attacks to my case BECAUSE i had no logical case to begin with, and wanted to be intellectually dishonest through this entire debate."

to quote my opponent: "but he never gave an example of what he is referring to."

logically, i didn't HAVE to, just said with a SCIENTIFIC definition of a parasite: " 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." from http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., to prove that the human fetus fits this definition of a parasite.

if you really wanted to know what type, even though you proved that you have a history on ignoring science, i say it's both a "periodic parasite: one that parasitizes a host for short periods," and "temporary parasite: one that lives free of its host during part of its life cycle."
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

BUT this is my opponent's unscientific-red herring definition of a parasite: "A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return," so you failed round one.

why? my opponent still refuses to accept that his/hers definition is NOT a scientific one, but an vernacular one and IS based on an opinion, which doesn't prove the fetus is not a parasite through SCIENCE.
first, the word "person" is a philosophical concept not scientific one; second, he/she used a definition with the words "gives nothing in return," as implying, absolutely nothing.... when his/hers own definition meant not giving something positive in return! to me, your unscientific definition would scientifically fit more to "commensalism: A symbiotic relationship in which one organism derives benefit while causing little or no harm to the other."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ---SINCE IT LACKS THE WORD: HARM, AND THE HOST DOESN'T RECEIVES A BENEFIT; third, there's a big difference between the words "gives" and "causes," because cause implies action and an opposite reaction, or CAUSE AND EFFECT, and "gives" in most cases does not.

while my opponent was being intellectually dishonest with his/hers unscientific-red herring definition of a parasite: "A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return," he/she ignored all the scientific evidence proving the human fetus is a parasite that i posted in round one and two, when the title of this debate is called: the human fetus is a parasite according to SCIENCE.
S98-SAMMAN

Con

Thank you for a timely response and I'm sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was very busy. Also I would just like to say that I was disappointed about my opponents attitude towards this debate. My opponent insults me and makes it obvious that he is not even trying to be friendly at all. Most other people on this site are kind. I am debating this to have fun, and to learn from people more experienced than me, but obviously my opponent is just in it to win. Also, I would just like to state that this was never a real debate to begin with. This has nothing to do with science, it's all semantics. Anyways, lets begin.

=====Argument=====
There really is not much to say here because my opponent spend about 3/4 of this debate insulting me, but I will try my best to argue this successfully. My opponents main attack was that my definition was wrong. http://www.google.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Now these are just a few websites that agree with my definition. Now knowing my opponent, he will say, "it says does nothing useful for the host," but if we think about it, a fetus does do many useful things to it's host. It provides joy. Having a baby gives you the feeling of accomplishment, and all of these things help the host mentally therefore they do indeed do something useful for the host.
http://www.parents.com...
http://www.thedailybeast.com...

Also my opponents definition says that "is often harmed," but this is not true, the vast majority of births are successful.
About "46 of 100,000" parents die from birth.
http://motherjones.com...

I believe I have covered all of my opponents valid points, so I shall now move on to my conclusion.
=====Conclusion=====
I believe this was a good debate although I would have had more fun with it if my opponent had a better attitude towards me. My opponent did not capitalize his first letter and he made grammatical errors believe I have done a good job with grammar and spelling and my opponent has not so I expect to get that point. I believe I had better conduct since my opponent insulted me throughout the whole debate. We both provided good sources so that point is up to the viewers and voters. I believe that we both had great arguments so that is up to the voters as well.
For all the reasons I have stated, I strongly urge a Con vote.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate with you galerouth.
Thank you for taking the time you have taken to read, comment and vote on this debate to all of the viewers.
Thank you for everything,
S98Samman
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by galerouth 2 years ago
galerouth
Macroscope, thanks for being as blind as con, a fetus is not a baby...google human development chart; Also, the fetus is a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior of one organism (the fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body, which is parasitic one.

as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its Trophoblast cells and hijacked her immune system by using Neurokinin B---so her body won't KILL it, and stole the her nutrients to survive and causes her harm or potential DEATH!

links in the debate.

it's the reason why women must take multi-vitamins during pregnancy.

"it is obviously a genetic investment for the next generation, just like milk teeth."

that's moot to science.
Posted by Macroscope 2 years ago
Macroscope
Also, VOTERS

Do not simply vote on what you believed before hand. Debating is about a questioning talent, so you should consider that. Debating is also about winning, we know this because we score points on information and lack of flaws and fallacies, we also do not vote to decide what is true... which is why this system is broken.
Posted by Macroscope 2 years ago
Macroscope
It is not a parasite, it is said to act like a parasite, but it is obviously a genetic investment for the next generation, just like milk teeth.

Your ad hominem argument against babies is particularly unfair as they cannot have a say.

Making a child is the purpose of a woman, it require substantial resources. The reason they cannot choose to abort, is because there is no sence in having less childeren, from a genetic point of view. Unless, that is, you couldnt support them with food, but if that is the case then why do we have an obeasity problem?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
galerouthS98-SAMMANTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is technically correct, since there is a symbiotic relationship between the mother, but his failure to provide a definition proved fatal. By account of HIS own definition, Con is correct; though "pregnancy osteoporosis", a child gives "pain" to the mother, adhering to his definition. Moreover, Pro consistently insulted Con, calling him "intellectual dishonest" while continually defining "parasite" and failing to even note what a scientific debate was....Obvious loss of conduct for Pro.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
galerouthS98-SAMMANTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved nothing. Just kept introducing more definitions and insulting Con.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
galerouthS98-SAMMANTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't articulate an argument, just hoped we'd create one ourselves by reading a few quotations. It's hopeless to argue that fetuses are parasites. We wouldn't keep producing fetuses if there was nothing in it for us. No species evolves the ability to create its own parasites. There would be no evolutionary advantage. Another way to look at it: "A chicken is an egg's way of creating another egg." Pro's insults were uncalled for.
Vote Placed by shooterboss 3 years ago
shooterboss
galerouthS98-SAMMANTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I don't think Pro did a bad job of debating, I still cannot give him any points, as he did spend much time insulting the other side. Pro failed to capitalize his first words in sentences and did not make as good an argument as Con. Also, Con's last few sources were able to refute many of Pro's thoughts.