Whaler Laughed: Wow you guys are hilarious! A caterpillar may (and does) turn into a butterfly; that's a fact! But no one at Merck ever said a caterpillar is a butterfly! And to my knowledge, no one anywhere ever said a fertilized (or unfertilized) egg is a "baby". What something may Become is not the same thing as what it Is! Nevertheless, many people attach the same value to whatever Is as they attach to whatever it may someday Be. However, others do not; they do not value a caterpillar as much as a butterfly. No one can judge such views as "right or wrong" in the same sense as "true or false" because values are not facts and consequently are not subject to judgments of fact. Values, like personal opinions, are not (and cannot be) determinative for purposes of legal rights; and that's a fact!
You are correct, the Merck manual said nothing of butterflies and caterpillars, but read the OP and the linked web site. They definitely said a embryo, fetus, is a baby!
Whaler17 Said:[ "You are correct, the Merck manual said nothing of butterflies and caterpillars, but read the OP and the linked web site. They definitely said a embryo, fetus, is a baby!" Merck Says, in effect: A baby (as an end result) goes through several stages of development: (1)a fertilized egg; (2)a blastocyst; (3)an embryo, then (4)a fetus. Merck does not specify the 5th stage because it's understood by sentence structure to be: (5)a baby. Your interpretation of the Merck manual illustrates the point of my "butterfly" analogy: You are attaching the same value (and meaning) to (1)a fertilized egg as you would attach to (5)what it might become (a baby). Personally, I'm inclined to agree with your value judgment. However, there's a larger issue that needs to be addressed: Should this value judgment be made by the affected individual or the Government? Most people opposed to abortion (at any stage) are also opposed to Government imposed value judgments. We now have a legal structure which places a time limit on the exercise of a personal value judgment. When that time limit expires Government is free to impose a State sponsored value judgment. Nevertheless, we continue to ask if a caterpillar has the same value as a butterfly? Should we empower the Government to tell us the answer?
I'm sorry, but the Merck Manual has no say in the matter. Abortion is an issue for philosophers and theologians, not for publishers.
Now that is funny! Another abortion promoter here says it is an issue for science and subject matter experts in scientific fields. Get your crap together people.
Says no such thing actually, in actuality it says ( and I did not add anything to the quote like you did): ""A baby goes through several stages of development, beginning as a fertilized egg. The egg develops into a blastocyst, an embryo, then a fetus." A baby cannot "go through" something if he/she doesn't exist!!! Basic English my friend!
A house goes through several stages of development: Stage 1: foundation Stage 2. framing Stage 3. plumbing & electrical Stage 4. insulation & drywall Stage 5. interior & exterior finish Obviously, it is not a house in its first stage of development.
The Merck home edition for lay people may dumb it down to "baby" talk. The authoritative Manual (for Clinicians) version does not use the word in this section. Still pushing the disinformation, I see.
The pro-abortionist folks are so ingrained in the dehumanization process they will never regard the gestation time of an unborn as anything but subhuman. This is how the mind rationalizes murder...with moral relativism. You ask how the German citizenry stood by and watched jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally ill get rounded and sent to death camps... they dehumanized them to such an extent that the act was no longer homicide...it was the equivalent of slaughtering an animal...a sub-human entity... The exact same rationale is being used by the pro-abortionist...and it starts with semantics... Never admitting to the biological reality that a fetus is just as human as the birthed infant... Birth = human In the womb = sub-human Regardless of the biological reality that it's the same entity only at differing stages of development. Whaler, we're dealing with brainwashed people here...the military uses similar techniques to teach troops how to kill without it effecting their conscience. It is all about the process of dehumanizing your foe... and to the pro-abortionist...the foe is the child, to them it is a parasitic disease, a sub-human entity.
I know Herk, I guess I am a dreamer, I want to think I can educate them out of their stuper, but so far I haven't had much luck. In fact several admitted that abortion is a homicide only to deny it the next week. I think they suffer from the same thing most left leaning folks suffer from. They follow along like sheeple in exchange for being told they are "so smart" and anto abortion folks are stupid. But in reality they don't even think skin deep into the issue, they just eat what they are spoon fed.
The Merck manual you cherrypick is not the prestigious medical reference book you refer to, it is the dumbed down home edition. Your argument such as it is is based on a lie. Even if it were not, it is a blatant "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Double fail.
So you think a house becomes a born human being at some stage of development? A zygote is the same entity as the born child it develops into.
If only you were as clever as you think you are. Please note for future reference: An analogy is a comparison of two DIFFERENT things that are alike in one way. Both a baby and a house go through different stages of development. But a zygote is not a baby, and a foundation is not a house.
An analogy does not mean equivalence, genius. So we are down to entity now? What does mere existence have to with this? To most with the elementary reasoning capacity, it is obvious that what exists now, as in a zygote, is not the same as what will be born.
It requires a reasonable likeness to be valid and reasonable, oh that's right you don't understand reasonable.
What is the unreasonable part? Both star out a "ingredients" both go through development and both have an end result. Is this so difficult for you to grasp?
That is a misrepresentation. "The pro-abortionist folks" do not claim a zygote, embryo, or fetus is anything other than HUMAN. Those are all born and obviously human beings. Here we have anti-women's-rights individuals claiming a fetus is a baby (a term for the stage of development from birth to one year). Which side is employing semantics dishonestly? Don't misrepresent. Please find an instance of anyone denying that both a fetus and infant are human. Says who? More misrepresentation. That is arguable in the case of twinning... Don't you think a fetus is human? How does accurate terminology dehumanize? I think it's obvious who is brainwashed.
