Very Interesting...
I have come to the conclusion that pregnancy is accurately classified as a parasitic condition: one organism living wholly off another, to the detriment of the host:
A parasite is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life in or on the living tissue of a host organism and which causes harm to the host without immediately killing it. Parasites also commonly show highly specialized adaptations allowing them to exploit host resources.
The harm caused to a host by a parasite can take many forms, from direct pathology, including various specialized types of tissue damage, such as castration, to more subtle effects such as modification of host behaviour.
Wikipedia
posted by Anonymommy @ 2:04 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
While i agree that a pregnancy is a symbiotic relationship, i would hope that it would be more of a mutualistic relationship or a positive relationship.
But it isn't symbiotic. Emotions aside, the woman's body's function becomes growing the baby. The woman eats more food to grow the baby. If the woman doesn't eat enough calcium to pass along to the fetus, the fetus will take it from the mother's bones and teeth. You (first commenter) are saying you agree it's symbiotic, but our blogger says it is parasitic, not symbiotic.
ah, good conversation :)
Actually, upon further research, I would say both anonymous #1 and #2 are correct. Mostly because a parasitic relationship is a type of symbiotic relationship- there are three classes of symbiotic relationship (mutualism, commensalism and parasitism) Mutualism is a relationship of mutual benefit to each party, commensalisms means one party benefits and the other is unaffected, and parasitism exists where one party benefits and the other is harmed. By definition alone, pregnancy is not a commensal relationship because the mother is affected, be it by benefit or harm. However, pregnancy could be classified under mutualism.
According to dictionary.com, a parasite is defined in a slightly more complicated fashion- 1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. (True for pregnancy being a parasitic relationship) BUT: 2. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. NOT necessarily true for pregnancy: the presence of a baby in utero can provide the host, the mother, with positive feelings of contentment and companionship, the outward appearance of a pregnant figure can win the mother societal accommodations and attention from others, etc.
So, the question may be one less rooted in definition, but in implication. We view the term “symbiotic relationship” more positively than “parasitic relationship”- the word "parasite" implies a negative, harmful or otherwise BAD relationship which I feel we are uncomfortable applying to pregnancy. The literal definition may in fact be appropriate, but we feel uncomfortable putting our unborn children in the same category as other parasites, for example, tapeworms.
Very diplomatic of you!
I did not know that parasitic is a type of symbiotic; I totally thought symbiotic meant only what I now know as mutualistic.
My apologies, first commenter, for jumping over your comment because of my own ignorance.
Still, emotions aside, I'd call it parasitic; hosting a fetus and hosting a tapeworm do have much in common.
On the other hand, maybe there's an element of design. Biologically, a woman's body is designed to gestate babies. There are some thoughts that not being pregnant is indeed to the detriment of women. More ocntroversial is that there is more of a risk of cancer. Less controversial is . . . ugh, more periods. So that shows benefit to the mother.
Then again, with the design, if it's how the body is supposed to be working, is it any of these relationships at all? Can a relationship be called parasitic/symbiotic/mutualistic if it is not interspecies?
Hmmm, I just recalled that sometimes, I believe, in the cases of conjoined twins, obviously the same species, one might be called parasitic.
But, insofar as a fetus is completely dependent upon the mother and uses the mother's resources to grow and informs the mother's behavior in ordre to get what it demands, emotions aside, it does seem more parasitic, more like a tapeworm.
Yes, I think you're right, that the parties being of different species has no bearing on the designation of a relationship as parasitic or not. However, there is a precondition that both parties be organism, I believe... So we come to an even more controversial question: Is a fetus an organism?
Post a Comment
<< Home