1/
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

2/
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."

3/
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…

4/
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…

5/
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…

6/
Pro choicers sometimes play verbal gymnastics with the word "invade," in attempts to argue that it's still a parasite.

Below is the definition of the word "invade." They often cite definition 2 "to encroach upon," to justify the "invade" criteria.

7/
Let's look at the definition of "encroach," below.

Therefore, the second definition of the word "invade" is not apply to unborn children, so it is concluded that fetuses don't fit the definition of "invading" people.
If in doubt, just remember how eggs get fertilized.

8/
Thirdly, parasites are harmful to their hosts. While pregnancy can have complications, it is nowhere near the same level that parasites generally cause.
This is summed up in Thomas Cheng's book, in page 7.

9/
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.
...

10/
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).

11/
Time to now logically prove that fetuses are not parasites.

The type of reasoning engages what's called "categorical propositions."
There's two different possible ones that the pro choicer could use, depending on the context of the statement.
Below is a graph of the logic.

12/
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

13/
...doesn't make sense, given that parasites by definition live in organisms.
The reason is because it commits the "undistributed middle" logical fallacy.
It is not a logically sound argument.

14/14
Therefore, to claim that unborn children are parasites, is not only scientifically flawed but logically invalid.