So you don't mind using a false term and call things something they are not. Okay we know how much to believe what you say now.<quoted text>
It's not a hypothesis. It's a proposed definition. I am saying that the fetus parasitizes the woman, meaning that it absorbs maternal nutrients without helping the mother in return, and that that makes it a parasite.
Others want to say that the definition should include that there be two species, or be an invasion, or be pathological, or whatever else has been offered to disqualify the fetus as a parasite.
I don't see the need to discuss it further. A fetus is what it is. I call that a parasite whether welcome or not. It isn't important that we all agree or not, because there are no implications for the fetus either way. It will be carried or aborted independent of anybody's definition.
Some of the people that agree that a fetus can be called a parasite will cherish it nevertheless and anxiously anticipate its birth. Others who agree with you that a fetus should not be considered a parasite will abort it anyway.
Are or were. The adults ones usually are not parasites.
It would change nothing except nomenclature to agree to call mammalian fetuses "parasites." No new knowledge is involved. No eutherian mammals would cease being eutherian mammals.
Defining things they way YOU see fit.
You are wrong end of story , science does not support your position.