parasite

Many of you may be sick of this already but I want to share this thought experiment(?). Anyways I invite you to come and join the discussion.

Postulate: An unborn human baby is a parasite.

The only logical argument I've heard against it that I will accept is that by definition, technically, a parasite has to be of a different species.
But that's the only reason I heard.
It still is a living organism that only takes and does not give. So by everything other than name, they are still a parasite.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore the technicality that a parasite must be of a different species. I have a feeling that most people's disagreement to having foetuses referred to as parasites is not related to my glossing over of the "different species" fact, but stems from something more sentimental. For that reason, I think that although it is not a parasite, thanks to a technicality, it is not an emotionally fulfilling answer to the postulate.
If this oversight troubles you, I would like to know why, and why you are really disagreeing.

Here are some rebuttals I have heard, and I provide my rebuttals to their rebuttals (as I said it to them, basically). If I have left yours out it is purely because I have forgotten. Please remind me, in that case :L

People want babies.
Consider people who broke their condoms and accidentally conceived. Is that baby a parasite?
Furthermore, is the parasite status conditional - can a tapeworm or leech sometimes be a parasite, and sometimes not?
Think about dieters who swallow immature tapeworms so that they can lose weight. Are you going to argue with me that by intentionally eating raw meat, or even swallowing the cysts in tablet form, is not a manifestation of their "want" for this parasite?

So the fetus is only a parasite if unwanted?
Good question. That depends. Is a parasite only a parasite if unwanted?
If I really liked leeches and I let them take my blood, do they stop being parasites? Did they redeem themselves or something?
If the answer is "no, because leeches and tapeworms are parasites always", then I answer the same about foetuses.

I'm pretty sure there's research that says that during pregnancy stem cells and other cells from the baby also go into the mother to reinforce her immune system. And that those cells stay in the mother even after the baby's born and help to increase her resistance against autoimmune diseases or something like that.
Barring the unreliability of this claim, I think you may have missed the forest for the trees. Sure, the foetus may arbitrarily "boost" the immune system, but clearly not to the point that mothers never catch a disease. Let's not forget the raging hormones, inability to move freely, leeching off nutrients, potential spinal damage, plus the all of these.
Similarly, with pre-scientific medicine, there was "research (look for 'life of the patient was preserved')" that says leeching could get rid of bad blood and treat diseases. Remember leeching was a thing they used from at least 17th century (I have a feeling it could be earlier but I couldn't find any sources), all the way up until mid-19th Century. Does this wishy-washy benefit uproot the leech's status as a parasite?

A tapeworm causes mechanical damage.
This was after Vaish shamelessly asked Mrs Flanagan. Unfortunately it was the end of the period and I did not have the time to get into a deep discussion with her :L
A baby can cause damage to the spine indirectly (like how the tapeworm indirectly causes malnutrition). They can also fuck up the cervix and vaginal canal real good during birth as well.
Morning sickness, having to pee every couple of minutes, and hardly being able to get out of bed towards the end of the pregnancy can be seen as sacrifices of physical health.
A baby also acts as some sort of hallucinogen, influencing the host to have cravings for random foods.

You will really REALLY want to do the cinnamon challenge, minion.

A baby can boost your emotional and spiritual health.
Yes. At the same time, if it was a broken condom baby, you will be losing hairs as fast as they can clog the shower drain.
Like if any of you female readers were impregnated right now, please tell me that it would be beneficial to your emotional and spiritual health. I dare you :L
Also, again, using the tapeworm diet - aren't they gaining emotional security by achieving their own desires? While their physical health declines (as seen above, arguably a foetus isn't much better), their emotional health (maybe spiritual health - I don't actually know wtf that is) is increasing in their eyes, right?

But a tapeworm is disgusting!

Delectable.

That, my friends, is the human placenta. It looks no better nor worse than a tapeworm. In fact, a cleaned tapeworm looks pretty fine.
As you may point out, it is unfair to use a placenta in the argument involving babies. Well to be fair a freshly born baby, with all the blood-like fluids around it, and its crying, is not much more attractive than a tapeworm.
As a human I know childbirth is actually a uniquely beautiful process and that bloody mess of noise and umbilical cord is beautiful (sentimentally), but I think we abandoned human subjectiveness and its positive bias towards offspring a LONG time ago.

A baby will eventually leave your body
You can shit out tapeworms eventually. Next.

But I heard the guy at Field of Mars say that a parasite is only a parasite if it causes harm to the point of fatality to the host organism. Not all women die of childbirth... - Susmitha
I want you to name 5 human parasites.
Then, I want you to tell me how many of those kill you while they're sucking your blood.
From a parasite's point of view, it is very disadvantageous to kill the host. It is much better to have the same host sustain a parasite for the duration of the parasite's life - that would be ideal.

does that as soon as we exit the uterus, we are no longer considered a parasite?
In the same way that when you pull a leech off your skin it is no longer considered a parasite.
Though, yes you are correct even if your question did not explicitly address the point that outside of the mother/host, it will no longer die without being attached to the host. You know, barring breast milk and their tendency to swallow whatever they can find, among all the other suicidal things babies do. But yeah, once born it's not a parasite for the sake of this discussion.

But that means you were once a parasite.
Okay.

You wife is going to dump you if you tell her it's a parasite.
My hypothetical wife dumping me does not make the baby any less of a parasite.

That's offensive.
It is only because it has negative connotations in the English language. You should overcome your subjective stigmas against these organisms. It is a scientific term and has very objective origins.

But parasites are bad for most people! How would you like a tapeworm in your body?!
I think I'd rather have a tapeworm than have a baby in my body. It's a bit worrying to have a foetus.
If you add together all the prepubescent girls, and all the males in the world, I am sure that constitutes as "most people", and hence we can conclude that a foetus will be bad for "most people".

How about when I fall pregnant, you get a tapeworm in your intestines? [Female speaker, of course]
Just because you have a parasite doesn't mean I want one.

You know you want one. All the cool kids are doing it!

You're going to fail section 2 of UMAT.
You may think that but at least I'll ace section 1.
Anyways the conclusion I made in class (I had to use humour because logic didn't have the greatest presence by the time these kind of comments were being made) is that
Section 1: Babies are parasites
Section 2: Babies are not parasites
Section 3: There will be 3 parasites and 1 baby in the next frame

there is a whole list of reasons there if that helps.
The only un-waffle one is 1, and that's like the first thing I addressed. I'ma be blunt now and say that that list is pretty crap. Can I trust you to come back with the ones that you don't think are stupid? Then we can talk. I can't be bothered pointing out the obvious :L.