Everyone Calls it a Baby When She's Not Having an Abortion

Women say "I'm having a baby!"

People have "baby showers."

People say "Let me feel the baby" before patting the mother's tummy.

Only in the abortion context do people use the medical term "fetus."

That is to detach themselves emotionally from what they're doing: killing a baby.

It is a form of lying to use euphemisms to excuse murder.

It is cowardly to avoid the truth instead of facing it head on.

Just admit you're killing a baby and I might have more respect for you.

 

Women say "I'm having a baby," meaning they will have a baby sometime within 9 months. "I'm having a baby in September," or "We're expecting a baby next month." When it is born it WILL be a baby.

For giving gifts for the baby when it arrives. A fetus has no use for receiving blankets.

A fetus doesn't grow in a woman's "tummy," so why didn't you use the accurate term, "uterus"?

The term "baby" is used as a term of endearment. People even call their pets and full grown children their "babies." "Zygote," "embryo" and "fetus" refer to specific stages of development, and are appropriate terms anytime specific terms are needed for clarity. Here is the medical definition for "baby":

baby
Vox populi A popular term for an infant, or the youngest person in a family, from birth to toddlerhood
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/baby

Accurate and specific terminology is not lying and abortion is not murder. It is lying to say this is a baby:

 

My mom still calls my 16 year old brother her 'baby', does that mean he's a baby by your 'definition'?

 

This seems a new trend amongst PF lifers: manipulate language to suit your needs and agenda.

Fetus: human in the women. Baby: human that has been born but not yet an infant.

There's a difference lifers. Learn it and get over it.

 

Irrelevant

At the core of this is the mistaken belief that women are so weak minded that they will have an abortion because they have not thought the procedure through and will happily kill anything to fit into a swimsuit.

There is also a refusal to acknowledge that the woman might WANT the child but find herself in such a situation where she has to make a very difficult decision. The point that women can decide the best course for them at the time is not a part of the pro-life platform.

Instead we have endless mischaracterisations painting the woman as "no better than she ought to be"

 

This is very true, and the worst(and the most humorous) part about it is, it's usually done incorrectly. Generally, I would think if you were going to bring semantics into it, you'd want to make sure you're were going to come out on top of that debate.

 

would that be

A: be responsible for having had her night of pleasure and taking care of that which she created

or

B: not want to be inconvenienced or accountable for her night of pleasure and killing the life

is that the tough decision of which you speak?

 

why do you expect an honest answer from hypocrites who have their life and value it but want to kill babies? They love abortion and their life itself is thus a living hypocricy

 

Abortion in the "right vs wrong" context can be argued forever. The inconsistency, legally speaking, isn't with terminology, it is the fact the law acknowledges a human's existence when a pregnant woman is murdered and the accused is charged with double murder. If the culprit murdered a human being still in the belly, then by the law's own admission abortion is legalized murder. Regardless of the benefits the option affords women on an individual basis, or society in general.

 

and Driving under the influence was culturally accepted at one point. Did we need a law to tell us that it was wrong?

Why must you hide behind a law? Do you yourself not know right from wrong?

 

It's very clear from your post that your motives have nothing to do with the "babies," but for punishing (make her accountable) a woman for "her night of pleasure." Thank you for clarifying that.

 

Right from wrong is a perspective. And all perspectives matter. I personally think abortion is barbaric. But are you going to take care of that kid if the mother doesn't want to? I'm (*)(*)(*)(*)ing not. Do you want a welfare state? For if those 40 million lost babies were now here we'd have no choice but to be one.

There are many situations in this world where something that is wrong on face value must be done for a larger picture. Animal lovers would argue hunting is cruel. But anyone who knows the wilderness would tell you game control is absolutely necessary for the survival of said species. I could go back and forth with abortion being right or wrong in my own head for forever. As a society? (*)(*)(*)(*) man. This debate will never stop. Legalities are the only way to find a consensus.

 

typical big govt post

there are no parents, brothers, sisters of the pregant person? No cousins? What ever happened to family??? or, is that the role of big govt?

and don't hide behind legality when trying to justify killing of babies. Stand proud for that which you support as disgusting as it is

 

It is very clear from your post that since you have your life, to he..............ll with anyone else' life

oh, you come through loud and clear all right

 

Yeah, I'm a huge big government proponent. You got me all figured out. You arguing that dumb "where are the family" line is right up there with those who support affirmative action arguing all white people are rich. You are the one arguing for the government to tell people what to do. Don't get it twisted. I know small government economics walk hand in hand with small government social legislation. Only the politically retarded play the rigged game that has been established for the state to forever grow. The day and age of our electorate being tricked into hypocrisy for the benefit of the few will soon be at an end. I don't like abortion, but I don't like government telling people what to do even worse. As for my pregnant woman argument, I was handing pro-life types a gift. When one wants to change law, legalities are all that matters, not rhetoric. SC doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about 'feelings'.

 

Why are pro-life argument come across as the most despirate?

"These people call it a baby, so I am not using the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy when I call it a baby."

 

I have my life, and regarding "anyone else's life," I think others, including women, should be allowed self determination. You don't.

 

but you callously sweep away 50% of the lives (sometimes more)

 

That's your opinion. Many scientists disagree, but if you really think the unborn are human beings/persons, why don't you support policies proven to reduce abortion like easily accessible or free birth control and comprehensive sex education?

 

hmmm, free birth control is now the panacea eh? Sooooooo, when people unzip or open their legs I need to be by their side with either a free condom or pill? They cannot be responsible for their own actions? Why not, I was?

Is there where your liberal ideology has brought us? People can no longer be responsible for themselves and thius we just callously end lives instead of demanding personal responsibility

and you wonder why I believe liberals are a cancer

 

So your wallet is more dear to you than the "life" you claim to cherish.

Women ARE responsible for their own actions. You are the one who wants the government to assume responsibility of women's reproduction at a huge cost to taxpayers.

 

my wallet- not at all. And you nailed it; my wallet. When i played I paid for condoms

when we did not want to combine egg and sperm and make baby we bought our own birth control pills

so my wallet did take care of my birth control

that is what you encourage isn't it? Or, do you propose that people should not be expected to be personally responsible? By the way, that's a rhetorical question to anyone who also condones snuffing out life because it's an inconvenience to them.

liberals.....pffft

 

Of course I think people should be personally responsible, but I'm a realist. Surely you don't really believe that criminalizing abortion will make those who engage in sex SUDDENLY responsible? That has never happened in any country where abortion was criminalized. But it DOES result in more maternal deaths.

At least you have been somewhat honest today. You don't really care about the "babies" as much as you want to punish women for their "night of pleasure." And you don't think "life" is more important than the taxes to provide easily accessible birth control. Thanks for those admissions.

"Pro-lifers"....pffft

 

Expecting someone to be personally responsible and having them actually BE personally responsible are two different things. Since we're talking about a child, which creates responsibilities that last, at the very least, for almost two decades, the person HAVING that baby ought to be ready to meet the challenges and responsibilities that come along with it. A good start for that is that the mother actually wants to keep the baby. Secondly, in this country we cannot even meet the food and health needs of people already born. What is it I keep hearing about Obamacare and how there's a shortage of doctors? Really? A shortage? There is a shortage of trained medical personal, meaning we don't even have enough doctors to treat the people already born and here, and we're still talking about whether abortion should be legal? That's pure insanity. Instead, we should be talking about whether child birth at all should be legal and whether just having children willy nilly, even if you DO want to keep them, is something that should be occurring.

 

I can get that you're upset with people you view as callous murderers, but be careful with tone or you're going to allow others to essentially change the subject away from the baby and onto you as Cady is attempting. This will happen every time you have such a discussion.

I don't think "weak minded" plays into it, and I don't think anyone accuses them of being happy to kill "anything".

But there is a feeling they're willing to kill a baby to fit into a swimsuit as opposed to going through labor and giving they baby up for adoption. That's not exactly fair either, as labor has more medical risk than abortion, I'd hope the mother would also give up some other things like alcohol, and really it is an ordeal.

Though there are resources out there to provide assistance personally and financially. If you ever know someone in such a situation you could consider turning to something like Lutheran social services which can hook them up with an adoptive family, though I imaging there are many such resources. There is a crazy high demand for adoption right now. That's why so many people are turning to third world countries, and why you have "baby farms" in some of those places. And even then it often isn't easy to get through the hoops, many couples simply don't have a hope of getting a child through normal channels.

This is an ethical issue, I don't think the science as such is in contention, there are no "zygote deniers" out there.

Again, this is an ethical issue. If someone were to change the subject to one with a strict logical formulation, like wether abortion increases or reduces GDP per capita or something that would be different.

The situation is that most pro-choicers already do not agree with certain ancient practices, like parents being able to commit "honor killings" of children later in life, nor practices such as leaving children born with physical imprefections out to die on the mountainside. However they take a position that by moving a few centimeters from the inside to the outside of a womb that a certain thing transforms in an instant from a meaningless lump of organic molecules into a supremly precious life.

Thus most practical pro-life arguments related to whittling away at that rather arbitrary demarcation, perhaps starting with cases where a baby cries during a C-section before it is entirely clear of the uterous. The pro-life stance is simply not accepting any arbirtrary demarcation.

Um, the doctor shortage thing is only because of a massive change in the number of patients almost overnight, as opposed to doctors being some kind of natual resource that we've run out of. One can train more, there are more who would like to be doctors, and if you have more people, than you'd have more people wanting to be doctors as well.

But more generally there is and has been crazy demand for babies to adopt in this country. The welfare state issue has to do with paying mothers rather well to keep their own if they have no support system.

Now, babies with medical issues probably are a resource sink, but I think they're there own issue.

Also, in any case, there are plenty of people not that could be killed for fun and profit. The practical part of me that sometimes wants to support abortion also supports cutting Obamacare and letting hospitals toss the poor that show up at emergency rooms into the same dumpsters as the aborted babies if their organs aren't worth enough to cover saving their lives. I'm not so fond of that part of me....