A basic question for "pro-lifers" who agree to abortion in cases of rape-

It isn't a baby. Abortion doesn't kill babies. To use the term interchangeably for the embryo/fetus in abortion discussion confuses the issue. Medical dictionaries at freedictionary.com confirm that "Baby" is the term for the stage of development between birth and one year:

baby /ba·by/ (ba´be) infant.
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

ba·by (bb)
n.
A very young child; an infant.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

baby
Etymology: ME, babe
1 an infant or young child, especially one who is not yet able to walk or talk.
2 to treat gently or with special care.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

baby
baby Drug slang
A regional term for:
(1) Marijuana;
(2) A minor heroin habit.
Vox populi
A popular term for an infant, or the youngest PERSON in a family; an infant from birth to toddlerhood (circa age 2).
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

baby [ba´be]
infant.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

Who says it's "another person"?

 

Oh? What do you think I posted......

And you sure like to avoid addressing complete posts.......wonder why?

 

Abortionists claim its not a baby, pro-life people claim it is a baby. That's the fundamental question - when is it a human being deserving of the rights and protections of every human being? Some abortionists say its a blob until its born - a ridiculous and untenable claim. Some pro-life say its a human at conception - that's open to debate. At some point between conception and 21 weeks, it is a human and abortion at that point and later is killing a human being.

Quoting the dictionary means zip in this issue. Everyone knows what is meant by "baby", playing the dictionary is just obfuscation.

 

You speak for everyone? No.

Using correct terminology IS scary for some and when they can use erroneous but emotionally charged terms to lie, they will.

Correct definitions of words is "playing the dictionary? LOL! I guess public school in America IS failing some students...but there are SOME who just don't want to learn...

 

Wow, learn to read. I know it takes patience and some reflection to understand and reply intelligently, and being in an extremist frenzy makes that impossible, but you might try settling down and contributing productively.

 

Like this post of yours did?

You are discussing the poster not the post...but I can see where you'd have trouble addressing my posts

 

Pro-life people would be incorrect regarding the specific terminology needed for the question of abortion legality.

Normally, human beings are granted rights when they are capable of exercising them. An embryo/fetus before viability is unable to exercise the right to life on its own.

A blob of cells is more accurate than "baby" for a scientific description of an embryo or fetus. Most pro-choicers use the accurate, specific terms embryo and fetus.

Also open to debate.

Scientific accuracy=obfuscation??? For many people, abortion in the embryonic stage is acceptable, but not in the late fetal stage. The vague unscientific term "baby" doesn't distinguish between the two, and the only reason for using it is appeal to emotion. Try debating your case on facts and reason rather than emotion.

 

Thank you, perhaps you will come down off that crazy high and make some sense.

 

You have made it clear that you neither want nor comprehend nor use "sense".


I see you still can't address posts...it's a shortcoming...

 

We are not in a law class, and we are not in a medical class. This is more an ethics class, and in ethics discussions we go beyond the boundaries of the law and medicine. The law and the doctor can be wrong, just as they were about slavery.

.

And what about an adult who is not capable of viability, and, according to your definition, is incapable of exercising his right to life on his own? As mentioned earlier, Stephen Hawking is not viable, he cannot even communicate except through a computer and a few people who understand him, has he lost his status as a human being?

And the accepted point of viability is 24 weeks both legally and medically, although some hospitals with advanced facilities will drop viability to 21-22 weeks.

No, most abortionists use the term that best suits their argument. So do most pro-life people. You can argue the dictionary all day long, its not going to sway anyone. Everyone - even you - know exactly what I mean when I use the term "baby".

As the earliest preterm baby to survive was born at 21 weeks, its safe to conclude its a human at 21 weeks. That's just a fact. Do you have any facts to show its not a human?

Its a stretch, but if you have read the thread, you would see that I have been very clear that the point at which its a human occurs sometime between conception and 21 weeks, the exact point is open for debate.

If you can definitively define the point at which it becomes a "baby", then the issue is resolved. But you cannot, nobody can at this time. At least I can put a bound on it - 21 weeks - based on fact. All you have been doing is playing dictionary.

Of the various people here, I am the only one who has argued from a factual base.

 

OK, lets review. I have been clear in my position, presenting a bound on the point it becomes human as at least 21 weeks based on preterm survival (viability), and presenting an argument based on Western ideals of law and justice. You have done nothing but quote the dictionary and say I'm a monster. Looks like you need the training in presenting your position and responding rationally.

 

Your position may be clear to you but I have asked questions to clarify your position to me and you can't answer.

You did say no rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion, didn't you??

And this isn't an ethics class, it's not a class at all, it's a chat room.

 

I understand that you prefer emotional appeal to accurate terminology.

What do you mean, "Stephen Hawking is not viable"? He is surviving, is he not?

Yes, it's clear that you mean "I am forced to play on emotions because I can't make a case based on fact and reason."

It was a human when it was born, whether at 21 weeks or 40 weeks.

That is your opinion only.

The medical definition for baby is birth to one year The use of informal terms of endearment are inappropriate for discussing the legality of abortion.

 

Stephen Hawking has advanced ALS, he is completely dependent upon outside help for his survival. He cannot feed himself, can barely breath on his own and requires oxygen, cannot move outside of his wheelchair. Without outside care 24/7 he would die. He is not capable of life on his own. He is not viable.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I did not say "no rape victim should have an abortion". I said rape itself is not a reason for abortion. Its not the same. Think about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a chat room, but some of us actually do a bit of learning in a forum. Others are just interested in pushing a wild extremist view.

 

You said that ONLY if the girls LIFE was in danger.

And I pointed out that ALL pregnancies can carry the danger of death.

AND ALL pregnancies do have multiple effects, some permanent (including a baby) which YOU want to FORCE on a rape victim so SHE will pay for the rapist' s crime.

You feel her only way out is to have her life threatened by the pregnancy??!!!??!! Still a cruel and depraved idea....

 

Viable means "capable of living outside the uterus." He is certainly living outside the uterus.

Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is just as abhorrent as rape.

 

You're right(as always)

Force is force and taking away a woman's choice, as rape does, is exactly the same as taking away any other choice.

Rape is about power and control...the same issues Anti-Choicers have...

 

So the HORROR of having to give birth to YOUR OWN SISTER....doesn't really enter into your thinking?

 

Okay, Battle....Is THIS a "baby"....yes or no?



(BTW, don't even try to dodge the question....it's a fertilized human egg...but is it a "baby"?)

 

Yes you have been clear, yet when others disagree with you-you claim they are "extremist", and you cannot seem to understand that a fetus becomes a baby upon it's birth regardless of what the gestation period is. Even after a 16 week early birth it is called a baby.

 

Come on Mr. Dictionary, you missed the relevant definitions of "viable" such as :

capable of living; especially having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb (Hawking is not capable of surviving on his own even outside the womb)


capable of growing or developing (fails here too, without constant support he dies)

capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately (fails here too)

capable of existence and development as an independent unit (fail)


By every definition, he is not viable.

- - - Updated - - -

"Horror" is subjective.

The mental state of the person is a factor if it reaches a point to be life threatening. As I already stated in an earlier post.

 

You mean, is it a human being warranting the protections and rights of all human beings?

It doesn't look like or function like the people I encounter every day but left to the normal course of nature it will become what everyone admits is a human. Humans grow throughout their lives, we don't remove a persons human status because he requires "too much growth". Mentally or physically retarded/incapacitated people are still considered to be human and are treated legally and socially as human beings. Even people that require complete 24/7 care (due to injury or disease, conscious or in a coma) to live are still considered human.

With time and care, it will become what everyone admits is a human.

Yes, it is a human deserving all the protections and rights of every human.

- - - Updated - - -

No, only you and one other are extremists. Everyone else is pretty rational even if they don't agree with me.

 

"On its own" is not part of the definition, you just threw that in. "Capable of living outside the womb" has applied to Mr. Hawking for 70 years. When the 21 week fetus was born, it was viable--capable of living outside the womb. But not "on its own." It spent 5 months in neonatal care hooked up to various life support systems.

 

Both Hawking and the 21 week old baby lived outside the womb, neither would be alive without constant intensive care.

 

And back to the TOPIC.