And again, I never said an infant was a fetus. I never mentioned infants at all because we're not talking about infants. It's not hard to understand. All fetuses are babies, but not all babies are fetuses. So you know better than the people that wrote all those dictionaries?
Yes!! It's baby is used as a term to add emotional value!! And we have EVERY RIGHT to call a valuable human being by a name which means something AND is genuine English per the dictionary. Just as you have the right to ALSO choose emotive terminology, like fetus or clump of cells or whatever, to try to convey the opposite. Those are valid terms as well which is why I would never dispute them. But you can't sit here and say others can't choose their own valid terms. Once again, the fact you are trying to not have it called a baby means you are trying to sugar coat abortion. If abortion isn't so bad you wouldn't need to try to amend the English language to outlaw valid meanings in order that it not sound so bad. That's why we have different words to use for things in this language. You guys just can't accept that and so you have to play linguistic revisionist in order to facilitate your ongoing denial of word meanings and perpetual sugar coating.
You say that as if it is a fact. It's not. Does a BABY (outside the womb) have a developed brain? Does an infant crawling around on all fours have a fully developed brain? Ever seen videos of premature fetuses born at 21 weeks? They move around quite a bit before they eventually sucumb to their inevitable deaths. Of course, this is outside the womb where their humanity is plain for all to see. Inside the womb, pro-choicers can pretend it is just a mindless clump of flesh.
I am not talking about the brain being fully wired, I am talking about actually having a brain and that does not ahppen until after three months, for without any brain there is no thought and without any thought you are not a person. Simple as that. - - - Updated - - - Obviously to You and other Anti-Abortionists, I and most people see that your arguement is the obviously wrong one.
The only stupidity is your seeming lack of knowledge of the English language .. a woman describing the unborn in her womb (not belly - biology not a strong point of yours either) as her "baby" is an informal usage, pro-lifers using it is to provoke a negative mental image of abortion .. two very different conditions, and both are incorrect.
and you would be wrong, each of the words used are specific stages of development of a human being, so, in terms of human development an embryo is not a fetus, like a fetus is not a baby, like a baby is not a toddler, like a toddler is not a young adult... etc. Basically if you find the definition of Embryo it is: a developing human from conception to 8 weeks. The definition of Fetus is: a developing human from 8 weeks to birth. Then you enter the neonate, infant, toddler, play age...etc.etc. stages. Those are the Stages Of Human Development. So... when Pro-choice advocates say, "it's not a baby!" we actually are correct.
Calling something by its proper name is not emotive terminology, it is factual naming. Personally I'm not trying to convey anything other than factually information .. hence why I object to the use of improper names, it won't mean a thing to you simply because you can only put your point across by using emotive terms, just as some other pro-lifers use terms like murderer for all pro-choice people. I can certainly accept different words for the things when they are not used purely to produce an emotional response via an invoked mental image.
According to you, an anonymous expert on nothing whatsoever. \ - - - Updated - - - Not so junior. But its a free country, you can choose to be delusional if you want.
Well "child in utero" and "unborn child" are actually terms used in enacted legislation, so they are not informal and they clearly indicate that a fetus is a child. Dictionary definitions of child have also been presented, which you also claim are invalid. So you should be the ultimate authority on word definitions? Not the dictionary or actual legal terminology? why?
Actually you are wrong, I have never said the term child is incorrect, I said the term baby is .. moving the goalposts are you. - - - Updated - - - as you nothing about what my expertise are I shall treat this with the disdain it merits.
Highly unlikely, especially in one way!!! Now, back to the cold hard fact that abortion is a homicide, how are you coping with the fact that you advocate homicide?
Oh I am quite well enough educated. Are you saying that you think you believe abortions are justifiable homicides?
Apparently you missed my other post where I agreed with your premise for the sole sake of seeing what else you had up your sleeves, but as I already said, it was not much at all.
Well when you lie here, it doesn't really matter what lame excuse you come up with afterward to try to justify it. - - - Updated - - - If you lack the comprehension to understand a thread, I suggest you move along to another one, maybe one with nice pictures and simple monosylabic words
Valid analogy as both the average guy walking down the street and the average fetus in the womb present no real danger to either a passer by or the mother of the unborn child. You should read the definition of analogy before opining on it. - - - Updated - - - Read, they clearly are not. No imminent danger of serious harm or threat to the mother? No justification for the killing. Just as in most other homicides.
How many strangers walking by also happen to be inside of the woman's body or physically attached to her in some form? Yes, it is a very false analogy.
Oh I can comprehend the thread- that doesn't make it any less dishonest. Abortion is not legally or morally homicide. Your claim was and is dishonest and frankly rather delusional. If you stated it as merely your opinion, that would be so- but the claim of the OP is just dishonest.
When I supposedly "lie" anonymously on the Internet? Yeah ok. ROFL! The abortion forum is srs bzns guys. And I really don't care if you believe me or not because I know it's true and most everyone else here does as well. I agreed with your silly premise to see what else you would say because quite frankly disagreeing with your premise was getting the discussion nowhere, in fact it was like watching people beat their heads against a thick stone wall that simply would not budge, but that could somehow talk and continued to insist their idiot premise was true. But apparently agreeing with it only lead to another thick, ignorant stone wall that also continued to insist they were just 'winning' like Charlie freaking Sheen.
That is completely irelevant. Why is that child in utero attached to the woman? What caused that? - - - Updated - - - Well nobody but hard core mindless leftist drones could possibly believe you. Besides, you have already admitted to being a liar.
