201
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + + + +
Raising a question.
Not that I'm blaming anybody. The [[:Category:Life Sciences]] have been taught in rather a materialistic way for many decades now, and it's hard to be "encyclopedic" and overcome that bias at the same time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Not that I'm blaming anybody. The [[:Category:Life Sciences]] have been taught in rather a materialistic way for many decades now, and it's hard to be "encyclopedic" and overcome that bias at the same time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
==Terminology==
This is going to become an issue soon, so it should be cleared up: What do we call the thingie from conception to birth? The correct scientific terms offer a series of dehumanising words - zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus(/foetus), but I know many object to using these words because they reduce the child to inhuman status. Conservapedia is pro-life, so it makes far more sense to call it a 'baby' from conception onwards. Why not? It's human at every stage. On the other hand, calling a newly-fertilised egg a baby seems to be so dripping in bias it would make us a laughing stock, as would pre-born baby or pre-born child. Mixing pro-choice and pro-life terms is also a way to introduce confusion - if we start off calling it an embryo, then switch to baby, what is the significence of the point of transition? More thought on this would be needed, but I just don't feel comfortable refering to a human being as a 'zygote' or 'embryo.' It sounds worryingly like a name given to a group in order to deprive it of human rights. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]