The term is not applied in error unless it is ONLY your definition that is acceptable--something with which I disagree, as do many other people.
If someone lives off of your substance then they can be considered a parasite. There is more than one definition of the word "parasite". You wish to confine the definition to the narrowest one so as to support your position, when in fact the word is used far more widely and correctly according to Merriam Webster:
2 a : an organism living in or on another living organism, obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutriment, and commonly exhibiting some degree of adaptive structural modification
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
I think that the "support withou making a useful or adequate return" would apply to the situation where a woman doesn't wish to carry the child.
I fail to see how it is irrelevant, if you get out of your element, then you will die, no one is required by law to save you at their own risk. When you get laws passed that require everyone to risk themselves to save others, then you can talk to me about this. You are putting forward a double standard by which women are to be required to risk for others by law. Science, my ass.
This too was argued before and shown to be nonsense. Definitive propriety means that things mean what people want them to mean.
This paragraph isn't science either. Science doesn't make statements like, "will likely come from realizing the truth that a newly conceived individual human being is a person rightly endowed with the foundational overriding right to life". This is irrelevant speculation about research based on a religious "right to life" for which you have not given a single scientific source.
