Wrong, it was after "stages of development." If it were meant to modify "baby" it would have been directly after that word.
Did you graduate elementary school? The subject was baby, the modifier was beginning as..... The rule does not say the modifier must be right next to the subject. .
And I challenge you to walk into the waiting room of your local pediatrician and ask all the pregnant mothers sitting there is that a fetus they are carrying or a baby. Baby is a perfectly acceptable term for the life in the womb and is correct usage of the term. That it makes the pro-abortion sides position very distasteful is their problem, they don't get to change the meanings of words because of it.
Cady, even if you are correct (which I suspect you are not), it changes nothing. It says that babies develop in stages the first of which is the fertilized egg. This implies that the fertilized egg is a baby in its first stage of development. The baby has to exist in order to develop.
Yes, they will tell you they are EXPECTING a baby in March, or whatever month. Absolutely not in a medical manual. It would be confusing and inappropriate, and Merck did not use "baby" as meaning "fetus." Take a look at the rest of the text. Nowhere will you see "baby" in the context of a fetus.
If that is so, why is it only interchanged "one way" and never the other way. Let me clarify. Why is it that no one ever addresses an infant or a baby as a fetus? If the terms are truly interchangeable as baby and infant are, there would be instances when infants are referred to as fetuses.
In other words, even if you are wrong, you are still right, lol! Good ol' Whaler, you never disappoint.
It has been born, it stops being a fetus when it is born. This is where your argument dies... A fertilised egg. No brain, no heartbeat, no nothing - and you consider that a human being? It describes the stages of development a fetus goes through in order to BECOME a baby. Two of my friends are pregnant. One is due next month, the other has just gone 4 months. I saw her ultrasound at 8 weeks. It has arms and legs and an oversized head, and it looks incredibly cute. I'm happy for them both. When she is asked about her pregnancy, people refer to it as her baby. Everyone does, even me. It's just a word people use. I have never known a pro choicer to say that their fetus is doing fine. Fetus is a medical term, baby is an emotive term. In the presence of friends, we use the word baby, but legally and medically, that baby is a fetus, and will be until it is born.
I am actually right, I am just pointing out that even if your granmmatical assertion were correct, you still have no point! Read it again, or better yet have somebody who understand English read it to you.
Then why all the BS arguing by pro choicers that a fetus is not a baby, when you just admitted a fetus is commonly considered a baby?
Lmao!!!! You didn't even address my comment Make. You skipped right over it. Very typical. If a fetus is not a baby, and a fetus is considered a fetus from week 8 to birth at 40 weeks, the standard duration for pregnancy, then how does a fetus, which you guys claim is not a baby, get birthed prematurely and look like any other human being/baby on the planet? You guys claim a fetus isn't a baby, so now explain to me how a baby is born prematurely say week 30, which if it were still in the womb you guys would be arguing is still not a baby. Come on answer this honestly.
Their failed argument has reached the light and that is this: They know in their heart of hearts it's a baby. They simply fight reality b/c they don't like the fact that someone not of the left has proved them wrong or that the facts are coming from someone on the right. These 2 things automatically require fighting against regardless of the issue. It's why you see people on the left argue the most ridiculous of circumstances and issues. Makedde just admitted a fetus is a baby. Megadeth has done the same, yet they are still going to defend their normal stances even though they had admitted this fact. It's who presents the issue that matters, not the facts.
What is so hard to understand about BIRTH being the process that changes the name as well as how the fetus/baby lives? BIRTH changes a being from physically dependent to physically independent, major changes take place, just like when a caterpillar changes to a butterfly. The major changes justify a name change as well to signify the difference.
You don't seem to understand that your statement is incorrect. A being is physically dependent even after birth for quite some time.
It is not. It is socially dependent an entirely different aspect. An infant is not dependent on another human to maintain life functions and homeostasis.
Lmao!!! Grannie just stated that humans go through metamorphosis!!....lmao!!! This is why your on my ignore list, the comments are ridiculous. You can't answer my question b/c if you answered honestly, it rips your petty argument to shreds. If a fetus is not abba y or a human being, then how can a premature "fetus" be born at 30 weeks and the "fetus" look just like every other human being on the planet? Could it be b/c a fetus is a baby? If not, do explain. Saying birth changes the name is irrelevant. Birth is a mere couple of hours in the entire life span of a human being.
This is pathetic. A newborn baby cannot physically maintain its own life after birth, so it is physically dependent!
Seriously? Is a newborn gonna get up and walk out of the house and pick some veggies to eat? If a baby can't feed itself, how does it maintain homeostasis? Starving to death pretty much breaks down the bodies ability to maintain itself, which is why you die from not eating. Your organs and systems fail due to lack of nutrition. So yeah, I would say a baby is physically dependent on others to provide for it's survival.
If you remove a fetus intact from a pregnant woman can it live if you feed it? Does it have the organs to process the nutrients? Does an adult have any additional organs compared to an infant? Of course not, that is why an infant can and does maintain its own life functions while a fetus can not.
Yes, seriously. Which part do you find hard to understand? Consult a biology book. Please lets not reduce this to the moronic level you are attempting. If the topic exceeds your capability them just stay out of the discussion. Homeostasis is a continuous process and it is maintained by the organs of the infant. The fetus does not have the organs to do so.
No they are not. They are socially dependent. They don't need a woman's body to survive, they don't need her physical nutrients, a flow of oxygen from her, etc. These things are done by their own body as they can now breathe, their circulatory and respiratory system has completely changed, their digestive system has changed as well. Their body can sustain life on it's own. All they need at that point is someone to change diapers and bottle feed/spoon feed them. But the mother is not necessary for this, ANY able bodied adult can do this.
It is cute that you think just by saying so, it will be true. A newborn baby cannot support itself physically, it is physically dependent irrefutably!
So you didn't answer my question and you made a lot of false statements. Riddle me this: you claim a fetus can't survive, but how does a premature baby survive? If regular term is 40 weeks and the "fetus" is born at 30 weeks, how does it survive if it's organs don work? Homeostasis is a continous process. What you don't understand, is that if you don't eat your body can't maintain it. Which is why your organs in the end. I have a degree in biology sir, why don't YOU open a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing book and read andesrn about it, instead of sitting here taking sniper shots and not answering questions.
