Skip to main content

Conflating pregnancy care with infant care

 This argument conflates pregnancy as ordinary care that one provides to their ZEF much in the same manner that giving a bottle or changing a diaper is care one provides to their infant.

The problem with this argument is that it conflates a symbiotic (specifically a parasitic-symbiotic) relationship with that of interdependency

I am going to define the differences between these three things:

  • Symbiotic (parasitic-symbiotic) relationships
  • Interdependency relationships
  • Parts of a body and their relationship to that of a whole body

Humans are an interdependent species. We rely upon one another to have our needs met. 

This does not involve a symbiotic-parasitic relationship nor are they the same.

Parasitism is defined here as:  

  • parasitism - one species lives on, in or with a host species

It goes on further to say " In parasitism, one organism benefits from the relationship at the expense of the other. The parasitic organism may live inside another organism's body (endoparasitism) or on its surface (ectoparasitism). The host species often weakens and sometimes dies, but in most cases, the parasite needs it to stay alive so it can keep feeding on it. "

Now, this obviously isn't what a ZEF is as they are of the same species as us. But here we can see that this is not the same thing as an interdependent relationship.

Interdependent is defined as: 

  • mutually dependent; depending on each other. 

Now, infants and toddlers do have more dependency upon the older members of their group. That is not to say though that their parents do not have some sort of need being met by their young. They depend on them to provide the satisfaction of loving and caring for another human. They bring them happiness and joy. And while their young are far more dependent on them, they are not living within their parent, weakening them (ie causing things like morning sickness or requiring harmful, painful, exhausting labor and delivery with 6 weeks recovery time) at the expense of their parent. 

Birth defines a crucial biological change. Once the ZEF is born, it is no longer biologically bound to a single organism host and it becomes interdependent upon other members of its species, not solely their host, further defining relationship differences and boundaries.

So, to recap:

  • Living within (parasitism) vs living among (interdependency)
  • Care is provided exclusively from the host (parasitism) vs care can be provided from the collective group (interdependency)
  • Benefits are provided to the ZEF in a manner that weakens their mother (parasitism) vs benefits are not provided to an infant in a manner that weakens the mother (interdependency)

The ZEF needs to not be living within its host, benefitting exclusively off its host in a manner that weakens them, with no ability for contribution to be provided by the collective, before we can consider pregnancy to be the same type of care provided to young as that of interdependent relationships. 

These are the differences between the two types of "care" provided to a zef vs an infant. To classify them as the same requires ignoring key differences and loosely defining the relationships.

To further support the case of highlighting key differences between a symbiotic relationship and an interdependent one, we need to not just define the similarities between a parasite and a ZEF, but also their differences. Because as I explained before, they are not, in fact, parasites as they are of the same species.

ZEFs are not just topologically contained within their mother. They are hooked into them, intertwined with them so as to act more as a part of a whole. 

Parts of a whole body are intertwined on a:

  • Homeostatic level
  • Metabolic level
  • Functional level
  • Topological (continuity) level
  • Immunological level

It is this type of relationship between parts of a body that define the whole. When these elements are lost, they are no longer considered to be a part of a whole organism's body.

I wrote about this previously here. Because of this, not only is the relationship of a ZEF further separated from interdependency through the understanding of parasitism, it is further separated from it by understanding that the relationship of a ZEF is more part-like with that of its mother's body. Meaning that for all intents and purposes, the mother's body recognizes a ZEF more as of its body than recognizing it as that of a parasite. It is literally a part of her body, not merely just contained within it in a parasitic manner. Individual members of a species that function merely interdependently do not share those attributes.

ZEFs are not the same as that of a born infant and thus should not be treated as such. We cannot ignore the differences between a ZEF and an infant whilst advocating for the benefits of their similarities. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fetal Awareness

  Fetal Pain This topic is being included in our wiki because it is one of the bigger considerations for those on the fence about where they stand on the issue. The ability for a fetus to feel pain is inconclusive at this point in time. One thing, however, is clear - a pregnant person will also feel pain at the time of onset of labor and delivery. Drugs can only be used so much, and they can wear off prior to or during delivery. She will also experience pain after birth, while she heals and especially if she has a c-section. She will be unable to take narcotic pain meds if she plans on breastfeeding as it can be passed through breastmilk. And breastfeeding itself, can be painful, especially in the beginning. And that is nothing to say of the pains felt throughout pregnancy, including the emotional impact it has on a person who is unable to access abortion and is compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Likewise, the pain of having to give up the child, who by the time of delive...

''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' & a rebuttal as to why they actually do

My rebuttal is to this Federalist article: ''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' This prolife article argues that prenatal humans have to belong somewhere. If not the womb, then where? ''For most pro-choice advocates, the right to abortion hinges on affirming that a pregnant woman has the right to refuse her child residence in her body. But then the question may be asked, if a prenatal human being does not belong in her mother’s womb, where does she belong? The answer? Nowhere.'' You can ask that if you wish. My answer would be that it is irrelevant to the very first statement. ''It is implausible to claim a child does not belong in the place she began to exist and the only place she can survive: in the nurture and care her mother’s body naturally provides. This has been the case for virtually all of humanity since our history began. The mother’s womb is the rightful place of a child in t...

Parthood view of pregnancy makes more sense than the containment view

  This will be a summary of a journal called Were you a part of your mother? that discusses two different views on the relationship between a pregnant person and a fetus. This journal entry refers to the pregnant person as the gravida and the fetus as the foster, so I will be referring to them with those terms as well. One view is the containment view and the other is the parthood view. The containment view seems to be a fairly commonly held view, one that I have seen both sides of the argument hold, so I will be focusing on the parthood view. I believe that the parthood view has a stronger logical standing. I will be summarizing it below by following the four criteria presented for what makes something a whole organism and what is a part of that whole organism. Following that will be the objections and how they can be addressed. I will not address every piece of criteria presented, but will do my best to condense down key points of this 55 minute read. Here is a mini table of co...