re: #779 Coracle

No. They these papers are likening biological functions of the fetus and mother to be similar in important ways to tumors and/or parasites.

Right, similar. So what? Things that are similar to each other are still not referable to as that thing. Gills are like lungs. They are not lungs. The fact there is a huge Darwinian difference between the relationship between fetus and host and the relationship between parasite and host alone shows how big the gulf between them is.

The argument you put forth in this paragraph and after boils down to, as I interpret it, that the fetus is actually ‘worse’ to its mother than a parasite is to its host, and that therefore ‘parasite’ is an understatement of the biological (and emotional) impact.

It’s both a misstatement and an understatement.

For me it’s a fundamental question of jurisdiction; the fate of a fetus, in this case exactly like a parasite, or a tumor, is in the mother’s/host’s jurisdiction to decide - and no one else’s.

You are analogizing. That can’t be incorrect, it can only be strong or weak. I don’t really care about discerning how strong the analogy between a parasite and a fetus is. And yes, I completely agree it’s entirely the mother’s decision. I don’t think that’s based on it being analogous to anything, though.

Perhaps the power of this word is indeed metaphorical. However, there is no single, focused word that encapsulates the whole of what you wish to convey. Find me that word, and I’ll use it.

Why does it have to be one word? Are we paying by the line or something? I don’t have a sound-bite for you. If you are convinced parasite works, then go ahead and use it. Maybe I’m wrong. Just pay attention to results, and validate that choice with scrutiny.