This website is intended for women who have chosen to continue a pregnancy. (BTW, who is the author of this article, and what are the credentials?) Don't you see how using the term in an abortion debate, i.e., "Abortion kills a baby" is emotional manipulation rather than factual? Don't you see how using "baby" and "fetus" interchangeably in a medical manual could be confusing?
Priceless! So in one post you say "baby" is an informal and purely social term, but now you are claiming "baby" has a "technical" meaning. Desperation is ooozing out of your fingers as you post!!!
All of the yak about "what if a woman can't afford the child" or "what if she wants a career instead of a child" and "what if she isn't emotionally ready to be a mother". All emotion laden statements that do nothing to demonstrate that the act of committing an abortion either is or is not deplorable and barbaric.
"Baby" is an informal term when referring to a fetus, but technically it's a stage of development after birth. Why is that so hard to grasp? Pay attention.
Well it is actually you who should pay attention, Merck already explained to you that a baby begins at fertilization.
No wonder you have so many problems understanding, you just insert your own WISHES into others' posts. Do you really truly think that anyone would be convinced by your disingenuous posturing?
I couldn't help but notice that you dodged my question. If it hasn't changed from what it is, it is obviously a baby!
It is never too soon to introduce your unborn baby to the world around her. Read more: How to Stimulate a Baby in the Womb | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_5173174_stimulate-baby-womb.html#ixzz1YoSO1g1l
This entire thread is not only an example of the "Appeal to authority" logical fallacy, it is also based on a misrepresentation. "The Merck Manual is a well respected medical reference book. " The implication here is that what it says must be authoritative, because it is a reference manual for medics. But the version referred to is the "Home Edition" aimed at laymen and carers, not medical professionals. The "Professional" edition carries no such "definition".
So its okay for you to dismiss emotional arguments, when you use them yourself, because the opposition to abortion is mainly an emotional argument?
You miss the point! My point is that you and your frequently dismiss the oppositions arguments as "emotion based" when your own are even more "emotion based".
That it is perfectly acceptable and correct usage of the word "baby" to refer to life in the womb as opposed to the specious claims otherwise. I can post example after example after example along with the dictionary definitions already posted. When an abortion occurs a baby is killed.
Why is it so important to you to use emotional, not scientifically accurate terminology? If your argument were sound, you wouldn't have to resort to that. It is acceptable in informal situations, not in debate or medical manuals where accurate terminology is important. I call my cat my "baby," too, but that doesn't mean he is one.
Why is it so important to you to deny life in the womb is a baby? I merely pointing out that those who claim otherwise do so fallaciously. The emotional problem is not on my side, it is those who support abortion who have to overcome their emotions by attempts to dehumanize the baby that is killed.
Don't you think accuracy is important in debate? In the 3 dictionary entries I posted, including OXFORD, "baby" was NOT defined as a fetus. Four medicial dictionaries defined "baby" as an infant from birth to one year. It is only used to mean a fetus in informal context. Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, not appropriate in debate. No one is trying to dehumanize the fetus, unless you are. Don't you think a (human) fetus is human?
