You know what they are as you have babbled incoherently in response every time they have been posted here before.
You have been asked to provide the quote where the site defines the fetus a baby. You have yet to do so and undoubtedly will never do so but evade instead and there can be only ONE possible reason namely that it does NOT.
I have posted it no fewer than 4 times here. You are either blind, drunk, or just plain unable to read.
NO...the OB's I know all said with each exam...your BABY is doing great. Present tense. Prenatal. BABY. BTW, I worked with a few of them, so they were aware that I know the 'medical' term fetus...we still called my unborn baby a BABY. As they did about their own babies. Jeez!
The other midwives I studied with did so too. It does nothing for your case, however. That is the social use of the term. The OP seeks to conflate the use of the social term in a technical sense which is not applicable.
No you have not posted anything of the sort. You posted what you interpret to say that a fetus is a baby. There is a difference even if it eludes you.
No - the OP states that the Merck Manual states: Which is true. So even medical texts call unborn babies...babies. Not really a big deal, unless you plan to kill them, and it disrupts your attempts to dehumanize the babies you kill.
My comment addressed your post, not the OP. However, The OP lays claim to the authority of the Merck Manual as a respected medical reference book, then quotes from the home edition, which is couched in simplified terminology for the lay person or mother to understand. It describes the development of a human animal through all the stages from egg to birth and babyhood. The actual medical manual describes the womb contents from embryo onward as a fetus up to and during the second stage of labor, ie. delivery. (birth.)
So what, it is still a baby in there. Yes there is no differentiation ba·by    [bey-bee] Show IPA noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing. noun 1. an infant or very young child. 2. a newborn or very young animal. 3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc. 4. an immature or childish person. 5. a human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby. Yeah I bet it is distasteful having to support and defend abortion, but you choose your own position.
No. You said: (Memory issues?) And as far as 'baby' being a 'social term'...jeez. Give it a rest. Bluesguy was nice enough to post the definition for you. YOUR problem is that if people realize that abortion kills unborn babies...the bloody, ugly horror of abortion starts to be realized. Now multiply that by 100s of millions of times since 1973.
Technically, "baby" is the stage of human development from birth to one year or toddlerhood, according to medical dictionaries: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/baby That is the usage intended by Merck. The social use of the term "baby" in a medical manual would be confusing and inappropriate.
It says what it says. Spinning efforts by you or anyone else will prove futile. "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 begins as a fertilized egg, OBVIOUSLY!
The same Merck manual refers to the "fetus's" head before delivery, and the "baby's" head after it emerges, distinguishing between a fetus before birth, and a baby after birth.
"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 begins as a fertilized egg. It is plainly obvious here. The explanation for your comment above is that they are interchangable, obviously. A fetus is a baby, and a baby can be a fetus.
"Beginning as a fertilized egg" modifies stages (of development), not baby. You are distorting the meaning of that one sentence, and ignoring the entire text of the manual which never once refers to "baby" as meaning "fetus."
You are terribly mistaken. Something that does not exist cannot develop in stages. A baby develops in stages, the first of which is the fertilized egg. You are desperately trying to change the rules of the English language. BTW beginning as a fertilized egg obviously modifies baby.
Something can exist after it has developed. A modifier is placed after the thing it modifies. Not my rules.
And before it has fully developed. Especially a human being who is not fully developed until long after birth. Does a fetus develop over time? How can that be, it cannot exist because it hasn't finished developing (according to you). I agree. The modifier was after the word baby, not before.
