The Unborn Child

[mac]

No, it should not be "muddy".
The purpose of language is to communicate thoughts, ideas, and information with as much precision and clarity as possible. At least, where I come from.
Calling things by the wrong names in an attempt to muddle communication and understanding because you feel "it should be muddy" is just nuts.

Which is the wrong name? If unborn child is used in Law to describe well, unborn children, surely that's not the "wrong name".

Excerpt from the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act:

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

 

[Barbbtx]

You're right, no one likes the idea of killing a child or baby. But when most people hear the words "child" or "baby", they immediately envision a BORN "child" or "baby". And that is why pro-lifers are INSISTING upon calling a zef a "child" or "baby." If it doesn't matter to your cause, why don't you use the accurate terms?

Most people have no problems with a 4 month deadline. I would prefer pushing it to 20 weeks, since the brain development at that time is not such that I would consider the zef a person.

I don't think unborn child, unborn baby could be confused with child, baby, so pro-choicers should have no objection to those words.
Besides I've never heard a pregnant woman say, "would you like to feel the fetus kick?"
A drunk driver who causes the death of an unborn baby, may prefer to think of it as a fetus for his own reasons, but the mother knows he is responsible for killing her child..........Unless.... she was on the way to the abortion clinic....hmmm thoughts?

 

[MaggieD]

No, it should not be "muddy".
The purpose of language is to communicate thoughts, ideas, and information with as much precision and clarity as possible. At least, where I come from.
Calling things by the wrong names in an attempt to muddle communication and understanding because you feel "it should be muddy" is just nuts.

We eat oysters alive. It's the only way to eat them raw. So let's start eating fetus's alive. Why not? They aren't human. They aren't children. They aren't babies. Just another kind of protein. Since it's legal to abort them and throw them in a garbage bucket at 24 weeks when they're 8" long and have a little face and wiggle and squirm when poked and prodded. Let's make them a food source. What a waste to throw them in a bucket and dispose of them as hazardous waste. Maybe dog food?

There's ample precedence for this, actually. In Asia, they eat live monkey brains. They eat live duck embryos. Maybe human fetus's could become the next delicacy. Okay, so maybe it'd be a problem for some? How about shipping them to other countries? It has no rights. Just a zef, after all. Such a waste in a hungry world, yes?

Sincere apology in advance for anyone's sensibilities offended by this post.

 

[OKgrannie]

Hogwash, my tuckus! If you entered any other debate and told the opponent, we'll talk, but you can't use any words or phrases that are particularly difficult for me ot overcome.....how many would you be debating with?

The term is legitimate, accurate, and honest. It's used everywhere, including law. Choicers need to face reality.

Nobody said you COULDn't use that term, only that it's an emotional appeal, which is dishonest in itself and manipulative. That's reality. So use it all you like, just know the reason you are using it and know that pro-choicers recognize the reason too. Don't pretend or claim accuracy. The term is used everywhere pro-lifers are, including law.

 

[mac]

Nobody said you COULDn't use that term, only that it's an emotional appeal, which is dishonest in itself and manipulative. That's reality. So use it all you like, just know the reason you are using it and know that pro-choicers recognize the reason too. Don't pretend or claim accuracy. The term is used everywhere pro-lifers are, including law.

What you just wrote is an emotional appeal, grannie. Using a term which is widely recognized in common usage and law is not dishonest. Claiming it is so, is dishonest.

 

[OKgrannie]

What you just wrote is an emotional appeal, grannie. Using a term which is widely recognized in common usage and law is not dishonest. Claiming it is so, is dishonest.

Hogwash! Nobody ever said dishonesty was uncommon. The terms "unborn baby" and "unborn child" for sure only become "common usage" when pro-lifers made it so. I'm old enough to know.

 

[jamesrage]

In recent discussions in other threads, many on the pro-choice side have objected to the use of the term "Unborn Child" as intellectual dishonesty. So, I did a little research on where the term is commonly used to show it's validity in addition to the mere definition of the word child, which clearly lists human fetus as one of the definitions in every dictionary I've been able to find.

These links are only meant to show how common the term is.

YouTube - To my unborn child - Tupac

Shooting victim loses unborn child | WTNH.com Connecticut

A Love Letter To My Unborn Child, Children Poems

Is It Ok For My Unborn Baby To Have Hiccups So Often?

Woman Sentenced In Crash That Killed Unborn Baby - wcco.com

Kaddish for an unborn child - Google Books

Here's a really good one: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law

How Smoking Affects Your Unborn Child

There are a couple of thousand references to unborn child that do not directly result from abortion arguments, these are only a few.

Now for definitions:

Child | Define Child at Dictionary.com
Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
child: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
child - Definition of child at YourDictionary.com

Since human fetus is clearly one of the definitions in every reference of child, and the term is used quite broadly in many contexts throughout the English language, what is the real reason that Pro-Choicers object so strongly to it's use in abortion arguments? Is this intellectual dishonesty? I think so.

The main reason abortionist oppose the term unborn child is because it humanizes the unborn child, in other words it associates that unborn child as person. If the abortionist can dehumanize the child it makes it easier on their conscience to justify killing that child and to have such evil stay legalized. As long as abortionists can keep that unborn child dehumanized it keeps abortion legal and easy. When more and more people start seeing the unborn child as a human being it makes it easier for anti-abortion laws to get passed. This is why they also oppose any attempt to make it a crime to kill an unborn child in cases involving the mother being a victim of some violent crime and her unborn child dying as a result of it. This is why abortionists oppose the term unborn child when describing the child in the mother's womb.

 

[prometeus]

The main reason abortionist oppose the term unborn child is because it humanizes the unborn child

You mean to tell us that it is not human and needs humanization?

in other words it associates that unborn child as person.

Which is not, thus it is dishonest.

 

[Barbbtx]

Nobody said you COULDn't use that term, only that it's an emotional appeal, which is dishonest in itself and manipulative. That's reality. So use it all you like, just know the reason you are using it and know that pro-choicers recognize the reason too. Don't pretend or claim accuracy. The term is used everywhere pro-lifers are, including law.

I don't consider unborn baby an emotional term. It's a real and proper term. The problem is pro-choicers don't want to make the connection between a zef, fetus, or whatever with unborn baby. That is their problem, that they take offence to a legal correct term. Pro-lifers take offence to the actual killing of the unborn. Why should we change our vocabulary to make pro-choicers feel better about themselves.

 

[Barbbtx]

Hogwash! Nobody ever said dishonesty was uncommon. The terms "unborn baby" and "unborn child" for sure only become "common usage" when pro-lifers made it so. I'm old enough to know.

When your mama had you in her belly she didn't think of you as her little fetus, did she? I bet anything, she knew she was carrying a baby and probably would have been offended if anyone would have referred to you as anything else.
Those terms are used in the medical fields and abortion clinics, not so much in real life conversations.

 

[1069]

When your mama had you in her belly she didn't think of you as her little fetus, did she?

In fact, yes.

 

[Barbbtx]

In fact, yes.

I'm so sorry to hear that, unless that's what she named you.

 

[jamesrage]

You mean to tell us that it is not human and needs humanization?

Not in the eyes of abortionists.Those who are actually opposed to abortion know that a unborn baby/child is a human being.

Which is not, thus it is dishonest.

A human being is a person. Nothing dishonest about calling a unborn child a human being or person.

 

[1069]

I'm so sorry to hear that, unless that's what she named you.

It's okay. Nothing to be sorry about.

 

[prometeus]

When your mama had you in her belly she didn't think of you as her little fetus, did she?

And when your mama had you in her belly she was not making public policy or trying to influence law.

 

[molten_dragon]

We eat oysters alive. It's the only way to eat them raw. So let's start eating fetus's alive. Why not? They aren't human. They aren't children. They aren't babies. Just another kind of protein. Since it's legal to abort them and throw them in a garbage bucket at 24 weeks when they're 8" long and have a little face and wiggle and squirm when poked and prodded. Let's make them a food source. What a waste to throw them in a bucket and dispose of them as hazardous waste. Maybe dog food?

There's ample precedence for this, actually. In Asia, they eat live monkey brains. They eat live duck embryos. Maybe human fetus's could become the next delicacy. Okay, so maybe it'd be a problem for some? How about shipping them to other countries? It has no rights. Just a zef, after all. Such a waste in a hungry world, yes?

Sincere apology in advance for anyone's sensibilities offended by this post.

My sensibilities are very offended by this. I'm offended that anyone could be so ignorant as to post drivel like this.

 

[prometeus]

Not in the eyes of abortionists.Those who are actually opposed to abortion know that a unborn baby/child is a human being.

everybody knows what it is.

A human being is a person.

and a fetus is not one.

Nothing dishonest about calling a unborn child a human being or person.

What is honest about calling something, something that it is not?

 

[MaggieD]

My sensibilities are very offended by this. I'm offended that anyone could be so ignorant as to post drivel like this.

Not drivel. Not at all, MD. Why is it drivel??

 

[mac]

Hogwash! Nobody ever said dishonesty was uncommon. The terms "unborn baby" and "unborn child" for sure only become "common usage" when pro-lifers made it so. I'm old enough to know.

Since the term far pre-dates any organized pro-life movement, I'd have to say you are full of poo.

 

[mac]

everybody knows what it is.

and a fetus is not one.

What is honest about calling something, something that it is not?

What is honest about completely ignoring that it is common usage and is the legal term most often used?

 

[molten_dragon]

Not drivel. Not at all, MD. Why is it drivel??

You're advocating cannibalism to make a point and you have to ask me why it's drivel?

There are lots of things that aren't persons, and we don't eat them, so clearly your little hypothetical situation is utter BS.

 

[mac]

You're advocating cannibalism to make a point and you have to ask me why it's drivel?

There are lots of things that aren't persons, and we don't eat them, so clearly your little hypothetical situation is utter BS.

She was far from advocating cannibalism. She was pointing out the absurdity in dehumanizing the unborn child.

 

[molten_dragon]

She was far from advocating cannibalism. She was pointing out the absurdity in dehumanizing the unborn child.

And she was doing so by proposing that we eat them, which, since they are human, would be cannibalism. I really shouldn't have to explain these things.

 

[mac]

And she was doing so by proposing that we eat them, which, since they are human, would be cannibalism. I really shouldn't have to explain these things.

You don't. The nuance is lost only on you.

 

[molten_dragon]

You don't.

It's quite blatantly obvious that I do, since you don't seem to get it, even after I've spelled it out for you.