|
|
|
|
|
by samplatt
850 days ago
|
|
It's not just amusing (and for some, uncomfortable) terminology. Pregnancy stimulates the mother's immune system in ways normally associated with fighting a parasite, and the fetus defends itself using techniques that successful parasites use. "Embryo implantation sets off a process that ultimately turns off a key pathway required for the immune system to attack foreign bodies. As a result, immune cells are never recruited to the site of implantation and therefore cannot harm the developing fetus." ... "it gives a satisfying explanation for why the fetus isn't rejected during pregnancy, which is a fundamental question for the medical community"
- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120607142244.h... Have a google around for similar papers. It's a fascinating topic that we've only begun to fully understand in the last decade or so. |
|
If you seek to use this analysis to push a political agenda, then I am having trouble differentiating the morality between that and slave owners pointing to the shape of skulls based on race. Your explanation is an analogy, parasites dont grow up to eventually provide care for the host, it doesnt sound scientificially accurate to call a baby a parasite based on some of the characteristics. Further, calling a baby a parasite, or anyone for that matter, is an attempt to dehumanize them; dehumanization has been followed by violence in a number of horrific tragedies, but the violence is committed by people who find it justified, because whoever they are killing aren't really people.