Anyone tired of hearing parasite comparisons from #prochoice'rs?
Read this thread for an effective rebuttal on how to refute this assertion with science and logic.
#ProLife #Science
Let's first understand the logic being applied by the pro choicers.
Their argument is that "because it is growing inside the pregnant person, it is therefore parasite."
Citing one textbook titled, General Parasitology, by Thomas Cheng, it is clear that parasites, by definition, require heterospecific relationships. That means they have to be different species.
books.google.ca/books?dq=Cheng…
As we know, unborn children, are their own unique organism composed of human DNA. If there is doubt to that assertion, see this definition, published in a research article by Oxford University. watermark.silverchair.com/del467.pdf?tok…
That on it's own defeats the parasite definition. But to refute further...
Secondly, parasite by definition, have to invade. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
There is other key parasite criteria, such as makes direct contact with the host's living tissues. When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to cut it off from other surrounding tissue.
...
In contrast, fetuses live in the placenta, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (ie the cells come from the baby). The pregnant persons's tissue will create a lining tissue that connects, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).
The first proposition they might argue is, "all organisms that are inside another are parasites," which is "All A are B."
That graph tells us that "All A are B, and there are B's that are not A's."
When A = "organisms that are inside another," and B = "parasites," that
Therefore, to claim that unborn children are parasites, is not only scientifically flawed but logically invalid.