• 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!

Why do pro lifers hate the word ZEF so much? [W:328]

David...the HERITAGE ORG's non-sense on Roe v. Wade...you've gotta be kidding.

Oh yeah....he has to be kidding.
I should show that article to my cousin who is a retired State Supreme Court Judge.
We could have a good laugh about how little the authors of that HERITAGE ORG's author understands about Constitutional law.
 
The Supreme Court rejected the fetal right to life argument in the Roe vs Wade decision.
What was that?
Oh yes I remember it was because according to the Constitution a fetus is not a person.

The wild thing about the site David posted for his source is nothing more than a far right wing organization, which have offered nothing more but OPINION, about Roe v. Wade's decision. It's almost laughable, really.
 
Oh yeah....he has to be kidding.
I should show that article to my cousin who is a retired State Supreme Court Judge.
We could have a good laugh about how little the authors of that HERITAGE ORG's author understands about Constitutional law.

It's like the external brain for Justice Scalia. Gezzzzz...

Gosh, we should have called up Rush Limbaugh if we wanted the Heritage for a source.
 
Jay...you...me...we're done. I can't fail at my argument. EVER...against you. BUT JAY...ppsssssssssssttt...seriously...we're done.

Funny how you just did utterly fail at your argument, then, if we can even charitably call it that.

You lied about me, called me names, made up some nonsense, and now you run away, declaring yourself a victor.

It's pretty special.
 
READ WHAT? Give me which ARTICLE of the Constitution you're talking about, which supports your argument.

It's more like there ISN'T any bit of the Constitution that supports the bug**** crazy notion that you have a right to kill your own kid.
 
Personally, I like Canada's SC ruling better - it ruled that banning abortion would violate a woman's right to 'security of the person' which is guaranteed under our constitution (section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Since no person can infringe on another's security of the person, even IF the zef were declared a person, making abortion illegal would still violate the Charter.
 
They kill a baby.

No, they don't. By removing an embryo or fetus from the biological life support of the woman's body, they prevent it from being developed into a baby. They do prevent that hypothetical future baby's coming into existence, but then, all people who use contraception successfully do that.
 
That is your opinion and your definition of what a child or baby is. Warped, yes, but your view none the less.

What you are missing is that minnie's view is in accord with objective reality and yours isn't. If an embryo is not capable of living outside of and in biological detachment from the body of a developed, born human organism, let alone growing outside of and in detachment from it, it presents no evidence of being even a separate organism with a separate life. You just don't have objective evidence for your view.
 
How about a 9 week old fetus? Is that one of the children you claim is being murdered or killed?

Nice avoidance of the question, David...but its not revealing the truth about your beliefs.

At nine weeks, it's an embryo, not a fetus.
 
It's like the external brain for Justice Scalia. Gezzzzz...

Gosh, we should have called up Rush Limbaugh if we wanted the Heritage for a source.

I'm not exactly fond of Justice Scalia's perspectives, but the truth is that he is much, much smarter and more capable of reason than people who write and read the Heritage.org site and its defenders here. Scalia's objection to Roe v Wade had nothing to do with the putative personhood of zygotes. He was just a state's rights guy on this one, and even if I think the reasoning against a state's rights approach on this issue is better reasoning, at least Scalia uses constitutionally oriented reasoning.
 
That is your opinion. Not reality.

no ... Minnie is right.

this website on coping with grief and loss over miscarriage does not refer to the loss of a "baby" for good reason - its because, even though a woman may think about it as "the baby" (and I was one of those who did during both my pregnancies) at the stage when most miscarriages occur it is more accurately described as a foetus.

Sadness After a Miscarriage - Five Stages of Grief in Pregnancy Loss
 
What you are missing is that minnie's view is in accord with objective reality and yours isn't. If an embryo is not capable of living outside of and in biological detachment from the body of a developed, born human organism, let alone growing outside of and in detachment from it, it presents no evidence of being even a separate organism with a separate life. You just don't have objective evidence for your view.

The medical field does not unanimously agree on that. :shrug:
 
no ... Minnie is right.

this website on coping with grief and loss over miscarriage does not refer to the loss of a "baby" for good reason - its because, even though a woman may think about it as "the baby" (and I was one of those who did during both my pregnancies) at the stage when most miscarriages occur it is more accurately described as a foetus.

Sadness After a Miscarriage - Five Stages of Grief in Pregnancy Loss

You quoted about.com as an authority? I can show you other websites that say the exact opposite. It's a way of coping and making you think the miscariage wasn't as bad as it was. That's fine if that is what you need to deal with it but it is not reality.
 
At nine weeks, it's an embryo, not a fetus.

Choice...I've always thought the embryonic development stage is as follows:

Week 1–3

5–7 days after fertilization, the blastocyst attaches to the wall of the uterus (endometrium). When it comes into contact with the endometrium it performs implantation. Implantation connections between the mother and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord. The embryo's growth centers around an axis, which will become the spine and spinal cord. The brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract begin to form.[5]

Week 4–5

Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the woman's menstrual cycle. Neurogenesis is underway, showing brain activity at about the 6th week.[6] The heart will begin to beat around the same time. Limb buds appear where arms and legs will grow later. Organogenesis begins. The head represents about one half of the embryo's axial length, and more than half of the embryo's mass. The brain develops into five areas. Tissue formation occurs that develops into the vertebra and some other bones. The heart starts to beat and blood starts to flow.

Week 6–8

Myogenesis and neurogenesis have progressed to where the embryo is capable of motion, and the eyes begin to form. Organogenesis and growth continue. Hair has started to form along with all essential organs. Facial features are beginning to develop. At the end of the 8th week, the embryonic stage is over, and the fetal stage begins.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#Human

NO?
 
You quoted about.com as an authority? I can show you other websites that say the exact opposite. It's a way of coping and making you think the miscariage wasn't as bad as it was. That's fine if that is what you need to deal with it but it is not reality.

the kind of websites that stir up anti choice hysteria have no credibility.

the embryo/foetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not a baby - that is a scientific fact.

mind you - those who think that "reason" claims we are descended from monkeys most likely don't have a good understanding of scientific fact. :)
 
Choice...I've always thought the embryonic development stage is as follows:

Week 1–3

5–7 days after fertilization, the blastocyst attaches to the wall of the uterus (endometrium). When it comes into contact with the endometrium it performs implantation. Implantation connections between the mother and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord. The embryo's growth centers around an axis, which will become the spine and spinal cord. The brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract begin to form.[5]

Week 4–5

Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the woman's menstrual cycle. Neurogenesis is underway, showing brain activity at about the 6th week.[6] The heart will begin to beat around the same time. Limb buds appear where arms and legs will grow later. Organogenesis begins. The head represents about one half of the embryo's axial length, and more than half of the embryo's mass. The brain develops into five areas. Tissue formation occurs that develops into the vertebra and some other bones. The heart starts to beat and blood starts to flow.

Week 6–8

Myogenesis and neurogenesis have progressed to where the embryo is capable of motion, and the eyes begin to form. Organogenesis and growth continue. Hair has started to form along with all essential organs. Facial features are beginning to develop. At the end of the 8th week, the embryonic stage is over, and the fetal stage begins.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#Human

NO?

I also thought the fetal stage began at 9 weeks.

Maybe you should have called it that 3 letter acronym for Zygote,Embryo, Fetus?
Then again maybe not because that really would have upset David.:lol::lamo:lol:
 
I was just wondering since I never use that term in support of abortion. Personally I call the unborn either human fetuses or call them unborn humans so I' am not guilty of ''dehumanizing'' them.

And also fellow pro choicers what do you have to say about this?

The answer to the question is obvoius...pro-lifers don't like the word becaues it appears to dehumanize the fetus as some kind of emotionally hollow word that takes care to call it every name BUT child, humna, person, etc.

I don't think ZEF's wrong, I don't think "Child" is wrong...I do'nt think either are necessarily MORE correct, it largely just depends on the individuals view point and hte context in which they're speaking.

In a way I'll think of it like someone building a boat.

In the early stages they may just have a frame that's made up of a few boards. It's hardly something that could be called a "boat" in a general term. It's not going to go out and float on water, carry anything/anybody, etc. At that point really it's nothing more than "Wood" or a "Support Structure" or "Frame (Lets call it WSF). At the same time, it's still clearly a boat that's being built. It's end point will be a fully workable boat. It's purpose and only real directoin it's going to go is towards being a boat. Even if it may not directly look like a boat at that time, it's not hard to see it and understand that's what its building up to become. It's not a seperate thing, it's just the early stages of that boat. And thus many would still refer to that basic wooden frame as the "boat" that is being built/worked on even though it may not be a "boat" yet.

Some people strictly want to term the things as they are at the IMMEDIETE moment in the most technical sense possible...some people prefer to term things trhoughout a process as the thing it ultimately is and will be. Neither are inherently incorrect.

Both sides, by and large, use the words they use for political reasons that they dress up and pretend and rationalize away into other reasons but really the truth of the matter comes down to their political motivations. There's a reason I've never heard the word ZEF EVER used by anyone who isn't either routinely arguing about abortion OR during actual abortoin debates. The vast majority of people who use it aren't scientists always worried about speaking in the most medically or scientifically relevant way in all cases, they're people with a political view and who have a strong desire to push their vie wand attack their opponents.

Pro-Lifer's use "Child" because they want to humanize the fetus and enhance the emotional attachment to it felt by undecided folks
Pro-Choicers use "ZEF" becaues they want to dehumanize the fetus and reduce the emotional attachments to it felt by undecided folks

Both try to make up other reasons and justifications and excuses for their use, but that's really what it comes down to in the end.
 
I'm not exactly fond of Justice Scalia's perspectives, but the truth is that he is much, much smarter and more capable of reason than people who write and read the Heritage.org site and its defenders here. Scalia's objection to Roe v Wade had nothing to do with the putative personhood of zygotes. He was just a state's rights guy on this one, and even if I think the reasoning against a state's rights approach on this issue is better reasoning, at least Scalia uses constitutionally oriented reasoning.

Oh, I agree with you on Scalia's intellect, otherwise he'd not be sitting where he is. He's pretty much considered to be the hardline anchor of the Court's conservative wing.

He's believes in textualism when comes to statutory interpretation...and like you said, he's noted to believe in originalism when it comes to constitutional interpretation.

Now, here's my rub with Scalia. He's balant about his beliefs on the 14th Amendment, which he doesn't agree with the interpretation that is now used as the pillar for women's right to privacy.

In my opinion, being a strict believer in originalism...can have it's drawbacks. That can stifle one's ability to connect the Constitution with an ever evolving and changing nation. While I'm a true fan of the Constitution. I see one who subscribes to strict originalism as being the equivalent of a fundamentalist in religion.

I consider Scalia...to possess a bit of cognitive rigidity...when it comes to women's rights and even gay rights. He's been under attack numerous times for being somewhat controversial on some racial issues, which leaves one to wonder about his true views on civil rights, period.

The reason I link Scalia to the Heritage Foundation is that they appear to be defending him more than any other justice.

You might find the following article interesting on Scalia:

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Takes On Women's Rights - TIME
 
Oh, I agree with you on Scalia's intellect, otherwise he'd not be sitting where he is. He's pretty much considered to be the hardline anchor of the Court's conservative wing.

He's believes in textualism when comes to statutory interpretation...and like you said, he's noted to believe in originalism when it comes to constitutional interpretation.

Now, here's my rub with Scalia. He's balant about his beliefs on the 14th Amendment, which he doesn't agree with the interpretation that is now used as the pillar for women's right to privacy.

In my opinion, being a strict believer in originalism...can have it's drawbacks. That can stifle one's ability to connect the Constitution with an ever evolving and changing nation. While I'm a true fan of the Constitution. I see one who subscribes to strict originalism as being the equivalent of a fundamentalist in religion.

I consider Scalia...to possess a bit of cognitive rigidity...when it comes to women's rights and even gay rights. He's been under attack numerous times for being somewhat controversial on some racial issues, which leaves one to wonder about his true views on civil rights, period.

The reason I link Scalia to the Heritage Foundation is that they appear to be defending him more than any other justice.

You might find the following article interesting on Scalia:

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Takes On Women's Rights - TIME

The original intent of the Consitution is what is to be interpreted. You are not to actively legislate from the bench and read things into the Constitution. Not the court's job.
 
The answer to the question is obvoius...pro-lifers don't like the word becaues it appears to dehumanize the fetus as some kind of emotionally hollow word that takes care to call it every name BUT child, humna, person, etc.

I don't think ZEF's wrong, I don't think "Child" is wrong...I do'nt think either are necessarily MORE correct, it largely just depends on the individuals view point and hte context in which they're speaking.

In a way I'll think of it like someone building a boat.

In the early stages they may just have a frame that's made up of a few boards. It's hardly something that could be called a "boat" in a general term. It's not going to go out and float on water, carry anything/anybody, etc. At that point really it's nothing more than "Wood" or a "Support Structure" or "Frame (Lets call it WSF). At the same time, it's still clearly a boat that's being built. It's end point will be a fully workable boat. It's purpose and only real directoin it's going to go is towards being a boat. Even if it may not directly look like a boat at that time, it's not hard to see it and understand that's what its building up to become. It's not a seperate thing, it's just the early stages of that boat. And thus many would still refer to that basic wooden frame as the "boat" that is being built/worked on even though it may not be a "boat" yet.

Some people strictly want to term the things as they are at the IMMEDIETE moment in the most technical sense possible...some people prefer to term things trhoughout a process as the thing it ultimately is and will be. Neither are inherently incorrect.

Both sides, by and large, use the words they use for political reasons that they dress up and pretend and rationalize away into other reasons but really the truth of the matter comes down to their political motivations. There's a reason I've never heard the word ZEF EVER used by anyone who isn't either routinely arguing about abortion OR during actual abortoin debates. The vast majority of people who use it aren't scientists always worried about speaking in the most medically or scientifically relevant way in all cases, they're people with a political view and who have a strong desire to push their vie wand attack their opponents.

Pro-Lifer's use "Child" because they want to humanize the fetus and enhance the emotional attachment to it felt by undecided folks
Pro-Choicers use "ZEF" becaues they want to dehumanize the fetus and reduce the emotional attachments to it felt by undecided folks


Both try to make up other reasons and justifications and excuses for their use, but that's really what it comes down to in the end.

Zyphlin, I see your perspectives on the "child" - "ZEF" issue (humanizing v. dehumanizing as trying to mix a perception of what an unborn is verse the application of common scientific/medical vernacular.

Pro-birth and pro-life uses "CHILD" because they believe it to literally be the equivalent as a BORN CHILD.

Pro-Choice use the "acronym" of ZEF for Zygote - Embryo-Fetus, which are genuine terms used to identify physiological stages, which are used to inject in discussion which are more definitive in nature to stages of development of an unborn

Notice the two sentences of your post, which are highlighted in red. I suggest that the use of "child" by pro-birth and pro-life is more commonly used in a much more complicated way than in the way you construct your point. The most common use of that word in abortion debates is: Innocent Child in the Womb.

Pro-Birth and Pro-Life have failed to support the claim and use of "innocent child in the womb" argument based on the true physiological development stages taught in every higher education institution. This is the most used description of the unborn. But it's a two-fold issue.

Firstly, using the word, "innocent" is not an applicable word or term when describing a Zygote - Embryo - Fetus. Why? Let's look at the literal definition of "innocent":

in·no·cent

Adjective

1) Not guilty of a crime or offense.

Noun

An innocent person, in particular.

Synonyms
guiltless - harmless - naive - guileless - ingenuous

It is virtually impossible for a Zygote - Embryo -Fetus to engage in the any behaviors that qualify them to be judged as any of the above. The words used in the definition of "innocent"...apply to persons who are born and interact with other born persons who engage in behaviors which have created the need to established words to describe a more specific nature of certain behaviors.

There are no behaviors being engaged in within a womb, which warrants the actions of a Zygote - Embryo - Fetus to be applied to interactions between events or born persons that can be identified as innocent or guilty of anything we "necessarily use" in a variety of social ways.

The "lack of a specific behavior or engaging in a specific behavior" is usually linked to the role of one's relationship to some event.

A Zygote - Embryo - Fetus plays no role in any events, which would identify its behavior as innocent or guilty.


CHILD LABEL...is the most obvious misuse of the word in Pro-Birth and Pro-Life's description of a Zygote - Embryo - Fetus. They simply refuse to accept the scientific/medical terminology used to describe the stages, which occur from conception to birth of the unborn.

Without these terminologies...it would be impossible for science/medical researchers to do the types of empirical studies that they do to advance our knowledge of our existence at all developmental stages....from conception...to death of natural causes resulting from old age adult born beings.

The only concession that Pro-Choice might consider when using the "acronym" ZEF is: ZEFTF (Zygote - Embryo - First Term Fetus) or ZESTF (Zygote - Embryo - Second Term Fetus) or ZETTF (Zygote - Embryo - Third Term Fetus).
 
I was just wondering since I never use that term in support of abortion. Personally I call the unborn either human fetuses or call them unborn humans so I' am not guilty of ''dehumanizing'' them.

And also fellow pro choicers what do you have to say about this?

For similar reasons pro-choicers object to using the word "baby" in it's place.
 
For similar reasons pro-choicers object to using the word "baby" in it's place.

I think you're right. They'll say it's because the term isn't "precise" or "correct" (and a few pages back I posted the definitive definition by the OED, which does include using "baby" to refer to the unborn), but I think the real reason is that it humanizes that which must not be humanized. Abortion doesn't kill a baby; it only kills a "ZEF."
 
Removable mind, I'm thinking you should've bolded/reddened my last line rather than the two preceeding it...it would've been a far more relevant point regarding your entire post. But thank you for preforming a sterling example of the mentality I was speaking of.
 
Back
Top Bottom