Now the F-word is offensive!

[MaggieD]

No, her perception is just what she imagines. That doesn't make it REAL.

No matter how rabid a pro-choicer gets, he is not shoving anything down anybodies throat, it's CHOICE they are all endorsing.
Neither is anyone deliberately trying to dehumanize a human life, it is what it is. Neither choicers nor lifers can have any effect on what IT IS, they can only affect others' perception, which, as I said, is not necessarily reality. It is choicers' contention that such important decisions should be based on reality, not be made on an emotional basis, so they deemphasize the emotional aspect. Lifers emphasize that aspect.

I disagree. In the human condition, when a mom is carrying a baby, she is not carrying a fetus, a zygot, a parasite or anything else other than a baby. I'm a Choicer. Now. And I think that such important decisions should be based on the profound truth that an abortion ends a human life. We make no decisions in our lives that aren't based partly on emotion. It's who we are. To try to intentionally remove emotion from such an important decision is disingenuous.

 

[OKgrannie]

I disagree. In the human condition, when a mom is carrying a baby, she is not carrying a fetus, a zygot, a parasite or anything else other than a baby.

What you call it doesn't change what it IS. (Wanna argue over the meaning of IS?)

I'm a Choicer. Now. And I think that such important decisions should be based on the profound truth that an abortion ends a human life. We make no decisions in our lives that aren't based partly on emotion. It's who we are. To try to intentionally remove emotion from such an important decision is disingenuous.

I guess you're an N and I'm an S. I think such decisions should be based on facts as much as we are able to focus on facts.

 

[kerussll]

I disagree. In the human condition, when a mom is carrying a baby, she is not carrying a fetus, a zygot, a parasite or anything else other than a baby. I'm a Choicer. Now. And I think that such important decisions should be based on the profound truth that an abortion ends a human life. We make no decisions in our lives that aren't based partly on emotion. It's who we are. To try to intentionally remove emotion from such an important decision is disingenuous.

This is so ridiculous. Of course she is carrying a zygote, then a fetus. That is reality. Do you think these things aren't human lives somehow because they are called by their technical names? People speaking casually call them babies. It's not that hard to understand and it is so insignificant to the abortion debate I am so frustrated with this thread.

 

[majora$$hole]

This is so ridiculous. Of course she is carrying a zygote, then a fetus. That is reality. Do you think these things aren't human lives somehow because they are called by their technical names? People speaking casually call them babies. It's not that hard to understand and it is so insignificant to the abortion debate I am so frustrated with this thread.

why yes i do think it is not a live human until the brain starts to function for it is the non-functioning of that brain that determines when it is dead, at least according to the law in 48 states.

 

[Ikari]

And I'm sure that no woman imagines a zygote or a fetus in their body when they think of their "baby":

They picture this:

Unfortunately, beliefs don't always coincide with reality.

You can only get that through the first few steps though. They are, in fact, the same organism. What befuddles me the most is that many on the pro-choice side seem to have no desire to understand basic biology or accept what it is. In the end, there is little any one person can do in this debate as the SCOTUS has ruled on it. But the constant ignorance towards science and biology is annoying.

I completely and 100% support abortion, regardless of whether you call it "aborting babies" or "aborting fetuses". Hell you could call it "murdering poor, defenseless cute little babies" and I'd still support it. This entire argument is just stupid. Once again, this is the doublespeak of the anti-choice movement coming out, as it always does.

Well one is rather quick to call for the stupidity on one side, yet not concede the stupidity on the other. Don't think that the pro-life side has monopoly on doublespeak.

 

[kerussll]

why yes i do think it is not a live human until the brain starts to function for it is the non-functioning of that brain that determines when it is dead, at least according to the law in 48 states.

By human life, I mean it is alive and it is human. Those are facts. Whether it's a human being is debatable.

 

[majora$$hole]

By human life, I mean it is alive and it is human. Those are facts. Whether it's a human being is debatable.

if it being a "human being" is debatable then what are the facts again? i agree the definition for when a human is in fact alive according to the law is a bit confusing. that is why i advocate "brain life" be that definition so that it is more in line with the law's definition of the opposite which is "brain death". then it will no longer be debatable.

 

[kerussll]

if it being a "human being" is debatable then what are the facts again? i agree the definition for when a human is in fact alive according to the law is a bit confusing. that is why i advocate "brain life" be that definition so that it is more in line with the law's definition of the opposite which is "brain death". then it will no longer be debatable.

Sorry, what facts are you asking about?

 

[prometeus]

You people bitch about pro-lifers using the words "baby","unborn child", or "unborn baby" because it humanizes the unborn and you have the nerve to bitch about a article saying the word fetus should be banned? Talk about hypocritical.

It humanizes? WTF is that supposed to mean?
Can you use any real arguments?

 

[prometeus]

They are terms rarely used by the general population. I went a lifetime without knowing what zef stood for -- or what zygot meant. Learned it through abortion debates. The words embryo and fetus are rarely, if ever, used in general conversation.

Maybe you should have read a book or two and attended a biology class.

Wow, you must have learned a new word.

No, but I learned that you still do not know how to spell "zygote."

Sorry, a woman doesn't carry an embryo or a zygot or a zef or a fetus when she's pregnant. She carries a baby. I don't know what circles you travel in, but, believe me, no woman ever says, "I'm three weeks pregnant!!!! Yay!!!! I'm going to have a baby!!!! Provided it survives past the zygot, embryonic and fetal stages."

I am curious, if she is going to have a baby, what is she having now?

My point is that the only time we hear these scientific terms is when people are discussing abortion.

You should get out more and try to read some books on the subject of human reproduction.

And they absolutely do dehumanize babies.

Right, because you say so...

 

[prometeus]

So what? Really, so what?

Oh so being precise is a bad thing now? Well I can see that when one has nothing else but emotional appeal.

Do you only speak in scientific terms?

Do you speak only in vague terms? Of course you do since accuracy is not something you favor.

No one only speaks in scientific terms.

But some formulate cohesive sentences. It appears you do not favor that either.

The only reason too insist on using only scientific terms is to dehumanize the subject in order to rationalize it as acceptable. Have the courage to admit that.

The only reason you use vague terms and ones that have emotional appeal is because you do not have anything rational to support your position. Have the courage to admit that.

 

[MaggieD]

Maybe you should have read a book or two and attended a biology class.

I can't deny that I might benefit by a biology class; but perhaps you should get out into the world more and learn that, in general conversation, these terms are conspicuously absent.

No, but I learned that you still do not know how to spell "zygote."

Well, I've learned it now.

I am curious, if she is going to have a baby, what is she having now?

I could take the cheap shot as you have a number of times here, but I'll resist. Perhaps you should ask a pregnant woman. Rest assured she won't tell you she's now carrying a zygote, an embryo or a fetus.

 

[CriticalThought]

We probably should get rid of the terms "egg" and "sperm" and start calling them "half babies".

 

[prometeus]

Perception is reality to a happily pregnant woman.

How about an unhappy pregnant woman, one suffering, one without resources and support? Why should public policy be based on feelings as opposed to rational thought?

Well....good for you. Surprise. I'm ProChoice, although I sure don't want babies aborted after 4 months.

No one want s that, but sometimes it may be necessary. Reality is that opponents of abortion want to make abortions, all abortions illegal, even though the vast majority take place in the first trimester.

The entire argument is NOT stupid. If rabid ProChoicers didn't try to shove their beliefs down other people's throats, more people would ADMIT to being ProChoice...with limits.

Take Canada, no leave it, just look at their laws on abortion. NONE, yet they have no higher incidence of abortion or even late term abortions that the US. Why do you suppose that is? They impose no limitations yet have no worse, actually better, results than the US. The problem is not that limitations are bad, but rabid abortion opponents can not even accept them and having them only gives them a soap box to stand on and condemn women. Just look at the many posts here. How many times are the brain sucking an dismemberment moronic arguments thrown in?

When ProChoicers continue to wave red capes in people's faces by deliberately trying to dehumanize a human life, they alienate the very people they might reach.

No one is trying to dehumanize anything or anyone. No one is that stupid to fall for "dehumanization" not even abortion opponents. But it is a buzz word, used for demonizing the abortionists, the killers of children, those who would wantonly butcher those innocent lives. The genocidal abortion proponents will destroy humanity.
On the other hand openly and honestly, devoid of emotion but with a realistic view of what is aborted, one can make better decisions.

 

[prometeus]

I can't deny that I might benefit by a biology class; but perhaps you should get out into the world more and learn that, in general conversation, these terms are conspicuously absent.

You are right. I'll even admit that when my wife and I were expecting our children, we did not call them zygotes or fetuses either. Do you have children? If you do, I am sure that you are aware that women, hopefully couples who expect babies are very emotionally vested in the pregnancy, as they should be, and the emotional well being of the expectant mother is very important not only for her bur for the developing fetus too, so a very good reason exist to use any means to boost her emotional well being. Fortunately no public policy is being formulated, but a very private matter is being handled.

 

[MaggieD]

How about an unhappy pregnant woman, one suffering, one without resources and support? Why should public policy be based on feelings as opposed to rational thought?

This thread isn't about the rights and wrongs of abortion -- unless that's what it's turned into without my knowing it. I've already stated I'm ProChoice, so certainly my take on the use of scientific terminology isn't driven by a ProLife stance.

No one want s that, but sometimes it may be necessary. Reality is that opponents of abortion want to make abortions, all abortions illegal, even though the vast majority take place in the first trimester.

I think you'll find that, if you press those people on this very forum, most of ProLifers are ProChoice With Term Limits. I looked for the poll taken a few weeks ago -- can't find it; but I think you'd find it enlightening. I just remember one or two votes where people said absolutely no abortion under any circumstances. ProLife/ProChoice. I personally always considered myself ProLife until debates on this forum helped me realize that, early in a pregnancy, I was just fine with abortion. Well, not "just fine," but you know what I mean.

Take Canada, no leave it, just look at their laws on abortion. NONE, yet they have no higher incidence of abortion or even late term abortions that the US. Why do you suppose that is? They impose no limitations yet have no worse, actually better, results than the US. The problem is not that limitations are bad, but rabid abortion opponents can not even accept them and having them only gives them a soap box to stand on and condemn women. Just look at the many posts here. How many times are the brain sucking an dismemberment moronic arguments thrown in?

I don't doubt that. Your bolded sentence above makes good sense. I have seen, though, just the opposite. ProChoice people who will say late-term/any-term abortions are "just fine." I don't think anybody really thinks that about late-term, but it's that rabid stance you're talking about.

No one is trying to dehumanize anything or anyone. No one is that stupid to fall for "dehumanization" not even abortion opponents. But it is a buzz word, used for demonizing the abortionists, the killers of children, those who would wantonly butcher those innocent lives. The genocidal abortion proponents will destroy humanity.
On the other hand openly and honestly, devoid of emotion but with a realistic view of what is aborted, one can make better decisions.

I see what you're saying. But I can make a fine ProChoice argument and never-ever use z/e/f. IMO, using that terminology offends the sensibilities of those who hold all human life to be precious -- even if they are ProChoice.

 

[prometeus]

I don't doubt that. Your bolded sentence above makes good sense. I have seen, though, just the opposite. ProChoice people who will say late-term/any-term abortions are "just fine." I don't think anybody really thinks that about late-term, but it's that rabid stance you're talking about.

Abuses and exaggerations along with mistakes and desperate steps will always exist in all human endeavor. Fortunately they tend to be rare and with work, at least in some areas, can be further reduced. Same with abortion. what is important is that the exceptions should not be the basis of laws or public policy.

I see what you're saying. But I can make a fine ProChoice argument and never-ever use z/e/f. IMO, using that terminology offends the sensibilities of those who hold all human life to be precious -- even if they are ProChoice.

True, but it depends on the opposition also having the disposition to have a frank and open debate based on reality and honesty.

 

[majora$$hole]

Sorry, what facts are you asking about?

just the ones you are talking about in your previous post.

 

[kerussll]

just the ones you are talking about in your previous post.

The only facts I mentioned are that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are alive and human. And that the name you assign them doesn't change what they are.

 

[Bodi]

Maybe you should have read a book or two and attended a biology class.

But they are not used in general conversations, and that was her point. Correct too...

No, but I learned that you still do not know how to spell "zygote."

Grammar Nazi says what?

I am curious, if she is going to have a baby, what is she having now?

Dinner? Look, don't get hung up on the phrase, "going to have". The operative (no pun intended) words are "going to have" and not "baby". It is a baby at 30 weeks just as it is a baby at 38 weeks just as it is a baby once it pops out. What is the qualifier for you? Once it pops out it is a baby? What if it does not go ful term? Is it a fetus one minute and a "baby" the next? What about C-Sections...

The reason that the unborn baby is called an unborn baby is not out of emotional appeal. It is because it is a baby that has simply not gone through the labour and birth process yet, much like a steak is still a steak even if it is rare. Through the cooking process, it becomes more cooked and no less or no more a "steak". A undercooked omelette is still an omelette if it is not entirely cooked. As I am cooking it, I say, "I am going to have an omelette" as I am cracking the eggs and such, but as it forms and the cheese is melted and the mushrooms and ham are cooking in the nearly solidified egg omelette, I say, "damn, this omelette looks and smells great". The baby is a baby in the same way. It is not entirely developed, but most humans aren't until they are 18 anyway. That is the ridiculous part of the whole argument.

You should get out more and try to read some books on the subject of human reproduction.

I have been out, and we have had babies, and I have been around many pregnant women and couples, and I have read books on human reproduction and child development, and I am not sure that I ever once heard people use the terms zygote or embryo in normal discussion. Perhaps our mid-wife mentioned it once when discussing a stage of development, but Maggie is correct, the only time that the terms are used is when discussing abortion or a scientific discussion about those specific issues or stages.

Right, because you say so...

Or because they actually do... or is your argument simply of the "nu-uh" "uh-huh" variety? Yes it is! No it isn't! LOL!

 

[MaggieD]

But they are not used in general conversations, and that was her point. Correct too...



Grammar Nazi says what?



Dinner? Look, don't get hung up on the phrase, "going to have". The operative (no pun intended) words are "going to have" and not "baby". It is a baby at 30 weeks just as it is a baby at 38 weeks just as it is a baby once it pops out. What is the qualifier for you? Once it pops out it is a baby? What if it does not go ful term? Is it a fetus one minute and a "baby" the next? What about C-Sections...

The reason that the unborn baby is called an unborn baby is not out of emotional appeal. It is because it is a baby that has simply not gone through the labour and birth process yet, much like a steak is still a steak even if it is rare. Through the cooking process, it becomes more cooked and no less or no more a "steak". A undercooked omelette is still an omelette if it is not entirely cooked. As I am cooking it, I say, "I am going to have an omelette" as I am cracking the eggs and such, but as it forms and the cheese is melted and the mushrooms and ham are cooking in the nearly solidified egg omelette, I say, "damn, this omelette looks and smells great". The baby is a baby in the same way. It is not entirely developed, but most humans aren't until they are 18 anyway. That is the ridiculous part of the whole argument.



I have been out, and we have had babies, and I have been around many pregnant women and couples, and I have read books on human reproduction and child development, and I am not sure that I ever once heard people use the terms zygote or embryo in normal discussion. Perhaps our mid-wife mentioned it once when discussing a stage of development, but Maggie is correct, the only time that the terms are used is when discussing abortion or a scientific discussion about those specific issues or stages.



Or because they actually do... or is your argument simply of the "nu-uh" "uh-huh" variety? Yes it is! No it isn't! LOL!

/Thanks X 2 ;-)

 

[Bodi]

No, her perception is just what she imagines. That doesn't make it REAL.

To a degree, it does... what is real? How do we know what real is? If people use their perceptions of observable data to determine what is real, then real is what we perceive it to be. Thinking that that some things are real and that is just a fact is to fall victim to pre-conceived ideas.

Of course we have to operate with pre-conceived ideas, otherwise our senses would be overloaded and we would trust nothing, but the fact remains that people use their perceptions to understand and live, and that means that our perceptions define what "real" is.

Appeal to the Majority is the issue with perception. The more people that find that their perceptions are the same are the ones that write the rules and those that fall outside that group are classified in various ways.

It is choicers' contention that such important decisions should be based on reality, not be made on an emotional basis, so they deemphasize the emotional aspect. Lifers emphasize that aspect.

Emotions are as much a part of "reality" as logic is... this is the primary flaw in you flawed argument.

 

[Gladiator]

Why is it that people carrying pictures of a fetus or embryo, with no clothes in the picture, are not prosecuted for child pornography?

Why does no one mention Blastocysts? Zygots, the one cell result of fertilization, have a high rate of natural failure to implant or grow further. Blastocysts are beginning embryos, with a sack structure of skin, to hole the cells together, while being handled and frozen in fertility clinics.

Blastocysts can be carried around in refrigerated freezer devices.



//

 

[mac]

Why is it that people carrying pictures of a fetus or embryo, with no clothes in the picture, are not prosecuted for child pornography?

Because it is not child pornography. You know..........there are some limits, even in debate.

 

[majora$$hole]

The only facts I mentioned are that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are alive and human. And that the name you assign them doesn't change what they are.

zygotes and embryos are living cells that happen to be human. so are the living cells left over in the body after someone dies ie: hair and fingernails continue to grow. are they living humans i ask you?