• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Many Americans don't know basic abortion facts. Test your knowledge

Bodi said:
My point was that the terminology is irrelevant. Baby. Fetus. Child. They are all accurate and they are all describing the same thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are relevant. Especially since they are not the same thing.
Bodi said:
Sure it is...
Click to expand...
Your own source refutes that.
Bodi said:
Because it is an emotional issue.
Click to expand...
Only to the irrational.
Bodi said:
They get emotional about their guns as well...
Click to expand...
Like I said, irrational.
 
Bodi said:
If she wants to abort her fetus or child or baby... it does not matter what it is called. It is not a person. That is all that matters. She can abort it.
Click to expand...
This is the argument that we have to stop using. It doesn't matter if it is a person or not. If a violation of bodily autonomy is occurring and the only way to stop it is to terminate the violator, say rape for example, do we not stop it because the violator is a person? No. Personhood holds no sway in the issue, so the offspring could be a person and it would not change a thing.
 
Gordy327 said:
It's a fetus pre birth. That's a scientific fact. "Baby" is just a generic and umbrella term to include newborns, infants, and toddlers, as well as possibly being used to evoke an emotional response.
Click to expand...
With fairness, it is also used rather idiomatically when referencing pretty much anything endearment is placed upon, ranging from mates to cars to pets, and beyond. But I do agree with you that most who use it as an argument are doing so for emotional augmenting because they can't come up with facts.
 
Gordy327 said:
How Your own citation defines a child: "the definition of child as "an individual from the period of viable birth to age 19,"
In other words, it's not a child until birth.
Click to expand...

In fairness and to show the greater audience the contridiction:

In 2002, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) changed the definition of "child" for purposes of eligibility for perinatal coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP Perinatal) to "an individual under the age of 19 including the period from conception to birth."
While the Committee on Maternal and Perinatal Health supports public programs that provide health care for pregnant women, the committee objects to this definition of "child." The committee endorses the definition of child as "an individual from the period of viable birth to age 19," which is consistent with standard medical terminology.
Click to expand...

As we can see there are two groups who are claiming two different definitions. @Bodi , the one that you quoted is shown not to be the standard medical definition, at least as claimed by that source.

However, @Gordy327 , I noticed that you did not address the quote from the Medical Dictionary, which does support Bodi's point.
 
maquiscat said:
In fairness and to show the greater audience the contridiction:
Click to expand...
I bolded it. Bodi wants to claim "baby" includes a fetus. But the source cites specifically states birth, i.e. newborn.
maquiscat said:
As we can see there are two groups who are claiming two different definitions. @Bodi , the one that you quoted is shown not to be the standard medical definition, at least as claimed by that source.

However, @Gordy327 , I noticed that you did not address the quote from the Medical Dictionary, which does support Bodi's point.
Click to expand...
Since we're resorting to internet dictionaries, I can cite one too, from the Cambridge Dictionary: Baby: a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk.
Or from the Etymology Dictionary: "infant of either sex,"
Or from Very Well Family: "Baby can be used to refer to any child from birth to age 4 years old, thus encompassing newborns, infants, and toddlers."
 
maquiscat said:
With fairness, it is also used rather idiomatically when referencing pretty much anything endearment is placed upon, ranging from mates to cars to pets, and beyond. But I do agree with you that most who use it as an argument are doing so for emotional augmenting because they can't come up with facts.
Click to expand...
It can be and is often used as a term of endearment, as well as a layman or generalization term. That's probably how most people think or use the term. Proper scientific usages do not.
 
That was easy. 4/4
 
Gordy327 said:
It can be and is often used as a term of endearment, as well as a layman or generalization term. That's probably how most people think or use the term. Proper scientific usages do not.
Click to expand...

Of course when we are talking about medical procedures, only the scientific definition matters.
 
quip said:
You need to be objective when reviewing the abortion scenario, the law is one way to do that.
By contrast, your one-sided view rest strictly upon emotional sentimentalism, an appeal which projects the shock of killing of a cuddling, mewling baby - even at conception - which is ridiculous at face value, while further relying upon the rare (and out of context) late-term abortion for maximum shock-value.
Click to expand...
You are confused. Most of us on the pro-life side know abortion is not going away and largely just push for common sense restrictions. The inobjectivity is with the left refusing to accept that it's a human baby until the moment it exiots the birth canal.
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
You are confused. Most of us on the pro-life side know abortion is not going away and largely just push for common sense restrictions.
Click to expand...
What are "common sense restrictions?" Abortion was largely limited to viability, which was a reasonable restriction and compromise. But that wasn't good enough for some pro-lifers apparently.
LetsGoBrandon said:
The inobjectivity is with the left refusing to accept that it's a human baby until the moment it exiots the birth canal.
Click to expand...
The inability for some pro-lifers to understand or accept facts is astounding. It's not a baby (newborn/neonate) until it exits the birth canal. Before then, it's a fetus. That's simple scientific fact!
LetsGoBrandon said:
Not fact. Just your cold hearted opinion.
Click to expand...
Emotional rhetoric.
 
multivita-man said:
13 people die each day waiting for a kidney transplant. Should the government require that we all give up a kidney to save them?
Click to expand...
Lame attempt at a strawman argument.
 
Gordy327 said:
The inability for some pro-lifers to understand or accept facts is astounding. It's not a baby (newborn/neonate) until it exits the birth canal. Before then, it's a fetus. That's simple scientific fact!
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, however it does not magically become a baby when it exits the birth canal.
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
Hate to break it to you, however it does not magically become a baby when it exits the birth canal.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. "Baby" is just an umbrella term for newborns, infants, and toddlers. Before birth, it's still just a fetus and an embryo before that. You should brush up on embryology terminology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom