Difference between revisions of "Debate:Fetus versus Baby"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Continued: reply) |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
I said "DNA and '''every other attribute''' of a human being." Regardless, I'm more interested in why promoters of [[abortion]] refuse to tell the mother that she is harming her own long-term health if she chooses [[abortion]]. If the unborn child is not a human and abortion is so good, then why the need for [[deceit]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT) | I said "DNA and '''every other attribute''' of a human being." Regardless, I'm more interested in why promoters of [[abortion]] refuse to tell the mother that she is harming her own long-term health if she chooses [[abortion]]. If the unborn child is not a human and abortion is so good, then why the need for [[deceit]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I think the argument about abortion and breast cancer is actually an argument for childbirth, as opposed to abstinence, miscarriage, and all other life choices that ''don't end in childbirth'', many of which aren't abortion related. Further, if you're going to quantify the reasons to oppose abortion based merely on an incidental benefit to the mother, I think your culture of life really becomes a culture of Me. It's just a talking point, and not a very good one. Sorry :-/-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 21:04, 31 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:04, April 1, 2008
| ! | THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting |
|
Moved from Main Page
- One distinction attempts to make a baby not seem human, calling it a fetus. It was liberals and the godless who came up with the subtly nuanced language in the first place, to avoid saying the word "baby" when talking about procedures to kill it. Through such finely crafted mechanizations, over generations, people's perceptions are gradually turned. And that was the whole point. The toddler/teenager comparison is apples and oranges, for there is no doubt in anyones mind that both those terms apply to human beings. It is just more of a comfort to say "the fetus was sucked from the womb by a tube", than to say "the baby was sucked from the womb by a tube". The more we obscure language to make palitable what normally isn't, the more society as a whole loses. --₮K/Talk 16:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- At the risk of offending you, sir, I have to disagree as a Doctor. A Fetus is a very different organism from a baby. If it were a baby, the medical profession would simply call it that. However, a life goes through many stages before birth and it gets confusing if we simply refer to all forms as a baby. therefore, there are several distinct characteristics that a lifeform goes through before the actual birth. The term was not invented by liberals, it was simply hijacked (please excuse the hyperbole) DrCB 18:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry, Doctor, I was unaware that medical schools were now teaching students the motivations of those in your learned profession who "hijacked" the term "fetus"! However, I am old enough to remember a time before all the controversy, and the common term was aborted babies, not fetuses. But I have no doubt someone will come up with yet another explanation, to continue this argument ad-infinitum. And that I will not be a part of. Cheers! --₮K/Talk 19:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Excuse me, sir. I went out of my way to phrase my response in a way that was neither condescending nor insulting. I'd ask that you have the common decency to response in kind. I pity you if you can not exercise common curtesy in debate. As for your point, nowhere in medical school did we learn mind reading or fortune telling. I simply stated and I stand by the assertation that the term fetus is a medical expression that represents one of many stages life goes through before birth. As for aborted babies, one could easily argue that those opposed to the practice picked a very harsh, and unpleasant way to decribe the practice. DrCB 19:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Also, the characterization of a pharyngula state embryo as "human" is dubious at best. If you consider potentiality to be the benchmark of humanity - and thereby, any fetus is a human baby - technically, a sperm is a baby, too. That definition would confound the term's common usage.-DParker 19:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Excuse me, sir. I went out of my way to phrase my response in a way that was neither condescending nor insulting. I'd ask that you have the common decency to response in kind. I pity you if you can not exercise common curtesy in debate. As for your point, nowhere in medical school did we learn mind reading or fortune telling. I simply stated and I stand by the assertation that the term fetus is a medical expression that represents one of many stages life goes through before birth. As for aborted babies, one could easily argue that those opposed to the practice picked a very harsh, and unpleasant way to decribe the practice. DrCB 19:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry, Doctor, I was unaware that medical schools were now teaching students the motivations of those in your learned profession who "hijacked" the term "fetus"! However, I am old enough to remember a time before all the controversy, and the common term was aborted babies, not fetuses. But I have no doubt someone will come up with yet another explanation, to continue this argument ad-infinitum. And that I will not be a part of. Cheers! --₮K/Talk 19:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- At the risk of offending you, sir, I have to disagree as a Doctor. A Fetus is a very different organism from a baby. If it were a baby, the medical profession would simply call it that. However, a life goes through many stages before birth and it gets confusing if we simply refer to all forms as a baby. therefore, there are several distinct characteristics that a lifeform goes through before the actual birth. The term was not invented by liberals, it was simply hijacked (please excuse the hyperbole) DrCB 18:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Folks, move this nonsensical discussion and silly comments somewhere else, please. The biological absurdities (e.g., "a sperm is a baby, too"!) are not going to remain here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:02, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Continued
Hi.-DParker 20:09, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Thank you! Biologically an unborn child (fetus) has the DNA and every other attribute of a human being. Nothing else does.--Aschlafly 20:14, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
A skin cell has the DNA of a human being. Does that make it a human being? No. --KimSell 20:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Furthermore, a for a time after conception a fetus cannot live outside the womb. Is it still a human being when it cannot live in our environment? Lyra Belaqua talk 20:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I said "DNA and every other attribute of a human being." Regardless, I'm more interested in why promoters of abortion refuse to tell the mother that she is harming her own long-term health if she chooses abortion. If the unborn child is not a human and abortion is so good, then why the need for deceit?--Aschlafly 20:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- I think the argument about abortion and breast cancer is actually an argument for childbirth, as opposed to abstinence, miscarriage, and all other life choices that don't end in childbirth, many of which aren't abortion related. Further, if you're going to quantify the reasons to oppose abortion based merely on an incidental benefit to the mother, I think your culture of life really becomes a culture of Me. It's just a talking point, and not a very good one. Sorry :-/-DParker 21:04, 31 March 2008 (EDT)