126,000 babies died today.

[nutshell]

I believe my point has been missed. In terms of a debate or learning (not in terms of a pregnant woman who is planning on carrying the pregnancy to term) carrying the using loaded terms is intentionally misleading and not appreciated. It's like calling D&X procedures "partial birth abortion." "Partial birth abortion" is not a term in any medical book nor a term a doctor would use.

I've miscarried. Had I not I would have gotten a medical abortion for reasons that you will never experience. I'm very aware about the process. I sleep just fine at night, thank you, but in the future you can keep your value judgments about me to yourself.

And you're missing the point that in terms of a debate or learning a person will use emotionally charged words to strengthen their position just as you will use the non-charged words to play down the emotion and strengthen yours.

 

[Sunstone]

...a person will use emotionally charged words to strengthen their position...

Does it really strengthen one's position to use emotionally charged words? I tend to think that when one side or the other resorts to emotionally charged words, it betrays that one doesn't have a strong position to begin with.

 

[Papersock]

Does it really strengthen one's position to use emotionally charged words? I tend to think that when one side or the other resorts to emotionally charged words, it betrays that one doesn't have a strong position to begin with.

Good point. But many people would probably be too emotionally swayed to think about it that way.

 

[FFH]

Does it really strengthen one's position to use emotionally charged words? I tend to think that when one side or the other resorts to emotionally charged words, it betrays that one doesn't have a strong position to begin with.

Reducing a child down to mere organic living matter allows liberals to push their immoral agenda off onto the masses which allows them to keep immoral abortions legal.

Liberals desensitize the individual, while conservatives help to facilitate moral conscience...

Human life begins at conception. Terminating human life at any stage after that is murder...

Are we the walking dead generation, desensitized to all morality and the sanctity of human life.???????

It's okay, I can kill you because after all you are just a piece of organic living matter....oh wait !!! I take that back, you're not in a mother's womb, so that would be murder....

Is there a difference ???

Why is it that as soon as the baby is completely out of the mother's womb, that's murder, butsomehow seconds earlier, prior to a complete birth, it's not considered homocide if the child is put to death ????

Seriously a child is a child at conception, a living human soul and to kill it is considered murder in God's eyes...

A child in the womb is still a child, it only needs it's mother's help to take in oxygen and noursishment...

 

[nutshell]

Does it really strengthen one's position to use emotionally charged words? I tend to think that when one side or the other resorts to emotionally charged words, it betrays that one doesn't have a strong position to begin with.

I believe it's a logical fallacy to equate an appeal to emotion to a lack of position.

 

[jamaesi]

I'm not making a values judgment. I'm trying to point out that it is stupid to fight over symantics. Everyone here knows what is being discussed when the word "baby" is used. The use of this word bothers YOU for some reason, so you brought it up. That is your problem, not mine or anyone else's problem. I don't care if you call it a baby, an embryo, a fetus or a mass of cells. It doesn't matter because everyone knows what is being discussed. If we were writing a medical dictionary, it would be a different issue.

Fighting over symantics in discussions like this avoids the real issues.

So I can say "women-hating repressive controlling hypocritical religious-nut anti-choicers" and it will be the same thing as "pro-life," right? It also won't make me look like I'm just playing off emotion and don't really have a leg to stand on, either, right?

It's just semantics!

 

[cardero]

FFH writes: Reducing a child down to mere organic living matter allows liberals to push their immoral agenda off onto the masses which allows them to keep immoral abortions legal.

Exalting a fetus to more than what it actually is or what it can potentially become does not support one's position either.

THEOLOGIC OR RELIGIOUS FAITH BELIEF

This is best explained by considering three people who might state their respective beliefs as follows:

a) I believe in God. I believe He creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that human Life begins at conception.

b) I also believe in God and a soul but I don’t believe the soul is created until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life begins at birth (or some other time).

c) I don’t believe in God or a soul.

Comment

- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.

- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.

- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

As James said, you're wrong. It just means "offspring" or "to bring forth/conceive." To go into the etymology of the word, fetus comes from the Latin verb fere "to conceive," not foetare "to give birth."

You can call a fetus whatever you want, but when you call it things like "baby/unborn child" you're simply trying to play off emotions.

No I am not playing off emotions. I am calling it what other scientists have called it and they say foetus means "Unborn Child/Baby". If you had a fulltime pregnancy for instance - would you not class that as a child? what makes it so different being inside the body - all that seperates it from your definition of a child is a piece of epidermis and some fluids - that is it!

 

[Jaymes]

No I am not playing off emotions. I am calling it what other scientists have called it and they say foetus means "Unborn Child/Baby".

Newsflash: Scientists aren't etymologists. It doesn't matter what they say it means any more than it matters what you say it means. The word "fetus" comes from "fere", which means "to conceive". If you don't believe me check any dictionary.

 

[McBell]

Human life begins at conception. Terminating human life at any stage after that is murder...

i disagree.
This makes it appear as though you believe that the sperm and egg are not 'alive' when they meet.
It is still a LIVING human sperm and a LIVING human egg.

Are we the walking dead generation, desensitized to all morality and the sanctity of human life.???????

Sanctity of life?
What is that exactly?
Here is an interesting opinion on the Sanctity of Life:

The more you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear the phrase "sanctity of life"...
...Life is sacred?
who said so?
God?
If you read history you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death.
You know where the sanctity of life came from?
We made it up.
You know why?
Cause we're alive.
self interest
living people have a strong interest in somehow promoting that life is sacred.
dead people give less than a crap about the sanctity of life.
only living people care about it.
It is a self serving man made BS story..
it is one of those things we tell ourselves so that we feel noble.
If everything that ever lived is dead and everything that is alive is going to die, where does the sacred part come in?

It's okay, I can kill you because after all you are just a piece of organic living matter....oh wait !!! I take that back, you're not in a mother's womb, so that would be murder....

Is there a difference ???

Yes.
perhaps some honest research on your part will reveal the differences.

Why is it that as soon as the baby is completely out of the mother's womb, that's murder, butsomehow seconds earlier, prior to a complete birth, it's not considered homocide if the child is put to death ????

because until the "child" can survive on its own, it is merely a parasite.

Seriously a child is a child at conception, a living human soul and to kill it is considered murder in God's eyes...

This brings up the interesting question of when the soul actually enters the body.
Adam did not have one till God breathed it into him.

A child in the womb is still a child, it only needs it's mother's help to take in oxygen and noursishment...

parasite (par

-s

t)

1. An organism that lives on or in another and draws its nourishment therefrom.
2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal autosite.

[G. parasitos, a guest, fr. para, beside, + sitos, food]
​

 

[McBell]

Newsflash: Scientists aren't etymologists. It doesn't matter what they say it means any more than it matters what you say it means. The word "fetus" comes from "fere", which means "to conceive". If you don't believe me check any dictionary.

fetus 1398, from L. fetus "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from L. base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. "Germania quos horrida parturit fetus," Horace), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of "fruit, produce, shoot." The adj. fetal was formed in Eng. 1811. The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Newsflash: Scientists aren't etymologists. It doesn't matter what they say it means any more than it matters what you say it means. The word "fetus" comes from "fere", which means "to conceive". If you don't believe me check any dictionary.

Newsflash: I dont really care what it means, it just makes me laugh when the child is wanted it is called a child - when it is not wanted it is called a fetus - now wouldnt that be considered to be playing on emotions as in covering them up! I am not about to type out my ideas on abortion again as it took me forever last time - I will find the link!

Edit: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49924&page=29

 

[jonny]

So I can say "women-hating repressive controlling hypocritical religious-nut anti-choicers" and it will be the same thing as "pro-life," right? It also won't make me look like I'm just playing off emotion and don't really have a leg to stand on, either, right?

It's just semantics!

You can say whatever you want, but you're going to have to defend it.

Let's start with woman hating first. Tell me how being anti-abortion is the equivalent to hating women. Do women who are anti-abortion hate themselves? Do you really believe this is a gender issue? Do men play no role in the abortion decision?

We'll be exploring the "religious nut" issue next.

 

[Zeno]

Let's start with woman hating first. Tell me how being anti-abortion is the equivalent to hating women.

It's not equivalent to hating them, it's equivalent to stripping them of their rights. It allows the government to have an invasive role in their own personal bodies. Most people are anti-abortion for moral reasons, and most people derive their morals from their religious teachings. So a woman who is against abortion doesn't view it as taking away her own rights, she just views it as following her religion. This is the same way that women in certain religions submit to the husband being the "leader" of the house and that sort of thing, or religions that teach that women cannot hold leadership positions in the church. Most women in Saudi Arabia do not view the fact that they aren't allowed to drive as being stripped of their rights.

Most societies and religions are patriarchal and have been for a long, long time. All this material on abortion is just an outgrowth of that.

 

[McBell]

Newsflash: I dont really care what it means, it just makes me laugh when the child is wanted it is called a child - when it is not wanted it is called a fetus - now wouldnt that be considered to be playing on emotions as in covering them up! I am not about to type out my ideas on abortion again as it took me forever last time - I will find the link!

Edit: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49924&page=29

now why is it, do you suppose, that doctors use the term fetus in medical records?
Could it be because it is the correct term to use or is it as you have presented, because they do not want it?

 

[Mathematician]

The social implications of allowing the government to control a mother's body can result in numerous dilemmas. If mothers experience a miscarriage, will the police investigate like they would any other death? Surely if abortion was illegal mothers who neglected their bodies and thus concieved a dead child would be prosecuted for murder.

Laws are supposed to be governed by the principles of practicality and fairness. I'm not saying that's always the case [The War on Drugs], but what I'm getting from this thread is an emotional appeal to criminalize abortion without actually addressing the problem itself.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe it's a logical fallacy to equate an appeal to emotion to a lack of position.

Stictly speaking, it might be. But it is also an equation that tends to be more often correct than not.

 

[Sunstone]

The social implications of allowing the government to control a mother's body can result in numerous dilemmas. If mothers experience a miscarriage, will the police investigate like they would any other death? Surely if abortion was illegal mothers who neglected their bodies would be prosecuted for murder.

I think it's Costa Rico or Hondurous that requires women who miscarry to be checked on by a doctor in order to make sure they didn't have an abortion. But I'm not sure of the Latin American country where that's done.

 

[yuvgotmel]

In the context of how this thread has gotten into the topic of "soul" by some Christians...perhaps these verses should be pondered:

Matthew 8:22: "But Jesus told him, 'Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.'"

And from Jude verse 12, the author speaks of those that are "twice dead."
​

Even Genesis chapter 2 alludes to a time before man was given the "breath of life."

The idea of soul, in Judaism, is broken into 5 categories--the first of which is the Nefesh: "the Nefesh is in the blood." Therefore, even animals have that type of "soul."

This arguement over soul is, as Cardero expressed quite well, quite ridiculous, as it cannot be proven. Furthermore, the "soul", in various religions, has many levels, of which are integrated over a long spiritual process.

 

[nutshell]

Stictly speaking, it might be. But it is also an equation that tends to be more often correct than not.

That's highly interpretive and depends on the topic of debate.