When Did It Become a Baby?

[The Papist]

I don't know, should we? I guess that's a question that we will each have to answer for ourselves. There are a number of those kinds of questions in the world. You should be grateful if you never have to face one of them in your own life.

That's a call only that hunter can make. Because he's the only one that can.

Yeah, see, right there is where you decided to usurp the reality that God has deemed that we all must live in. And it's why no one wants to listen to you.

What you think has nothing to do with anyone else.

Are you opposed to the death penalty?
If so, based on your argument, you should keep your opinion to yourself and not impose your morality on others who don't believe it's murder.
It's a little early to claim no one wants to listen to me. You at least cared to listen enough to respond.
Again, this is just a "you shut up" argument. I could just as well say that what you think about abortion has nothing to do with anyone else and you should keep your pro-choice opinions to yourself. But I won't say that, because one's views on abortion have plenty to do with everyone else.
Peace.

 

[anotherneil]

You were the one who claimed to work in healthcare and then went on to say you wouldn't work for an "abortionist".

Go read your comment #58 and then come back to me.

More than happy to be the one teaching you whatever lesson you need taught.

I'm the one who has to go back and read my own post?

Ok, fine, I'll admit that my memory sucks in general, but in this case I remember without going back to re-read it that you omitted some pertinent parts of what I posted.

I did mention that I work in healthcare, and I mentioned that sometimes it involves working in the NICU; I mentioned that the babies in the incubators in the NICU weren't (likely) from botched abortions, and I said that because I was making the point that a fetus can survive from an abortion. I made the comment that I wouldn't work for an abortionist to emphasize that such a place isn't where I work and wouldn't want to work, either.

Now, I bit and let things be about me rather than the thread topic; that's enough about me - the thread isn't about me. I'm not going to keep making it about me, anymore. If you continue trying to make it about me, I'm going to ignore it unless you violate forum rules, in which case I may decide to report it.

 

[PureX]

Are you opposed to the death penalty?

No.

If we lived in a perfect world, it would not be necessary. But we don't live in a perfect world, and so it something does become necessary. Like abortion. Like warfare. Like a lot of things that we would all prefer never happened.

It's a little early to claim no one wants to listen to me. You at least cared to listen enough to respond.

You're avoiding my point.

Who are you to decide for everyone else how they should respond to such difficult and unknowable circumstances?

Again, this is just a "you shut up" argument. I could just as well say that what you think about abortion has nothing to do with anyone else and you should keep your pro-choice opinions to yourself. But I won't say that, because one's views on abortion have plenty to do with everyone else.
Peace.

You don't have to shut up. Just like you don't have to respect the rights and responsibilities of your fellow humans, or even the obvious dictates of your own God. But you should be aware that you are defining yourself by your choices and your actions in this regard. Just as everyone else is.

 

[The Papist]

No.

If we lived in a perfect world, it would not be necessary. But we don't live in a perfect world, and so it something does become necessary. Like abortion. Like warfare. Like a lot of things that we would all prefer never happened.

You're avoiding my point.

Who are you to decide for everyone else how they should respond to such difficult and unknowable circumstances?

You don't have to shut up. Just like you don't have to respect the rights and responsibilities of your fellow humans, or even the obvious dictates of your own God. But you should be aware that you are defining yourself by your choices and your actions in this regard. Just as everyone else is.

I'm impressed by your consistency on the death penalty. Kudos to you for that. I'm almost universally opposed to it, for the same reasons as I'm opposed to abortion.

I'm basing this on the most obvious dictates of my own God and of natural reason: "You shall not murder."
And what of the rights of your fellow humans in the womb? Do they not deserve to live?

 

[GoodAttention]

I'm the one who has to go back and read my own post?

Ok, fine, I'll admit that my memory sucks in general, but in this case I remember without going back to re-read it that you omitted some pertinent parts of what I posted.

I did mention that I work in healthcare, and I mentioned that sometimes it involves working in the NICU; I mentioned that the babies in the incubators in the NICU weren't (likely) from botched abortions, and I said that because I was making the point that a fetus can survive from an abortion.

No one who works in healthcare with a clinical background worth their salt would ever say "a fetus can survive from an abortion".

A custodian could make that mistake, but not a clinician.

You are definitely not one of these, and I will remind you pretending to be a clinician is a crime in almost every country.

I made the comment that I wouldn't work for an abortionist to emphasize that such a place isn't where I work and wouldn't want to work, either.

Now, I bit and let things be about me rather than the thread topic; that's enough about me - the thread isn't about me. I'm not going to keep making it about me, anymore. If you continue trying to make it about me, I'm going to ignore it unless you violate forum rules, in which case I may decide to report it.

That's right, this thread is not about you, nor is it about abortion as per the OP's words also.

This is a thread in the science and technology forum, so if you want to be scientific about a topic, keep talking.

Otherwise, if you want to report me because I called you out for invading this thread to use of a slur like "abortionist", go ahead.

 

[PureX]

I'm impressed by your consistency on the death penalty. Kudos to you for that. I'm almost universally opposed to it, for the same reasons as I'm opposed to abortion.

Nearly everyone is opposed to killing other people. Including killing even 'potential' people. Or even to causing suffering of any kind, to any life form. But that is not the world we are living in. So we are forced to make choices about killing and suffering and good and evil, ... on the blind. And as we do this, we are defining ourselves. Creating ourselves ... with each decision we are becoming ... this.

Just as God apparently intended.

I'm basing this on the most obvious dictates of my own God and of natural reason: "You shall not murder."

You are basing it on YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you THINK God espoused. I am simply saying that what God intended is what it is. How could it be otherwise? And what it is requires us to make these difficult decision on the blind. Each for our own selves.

And what of the rights of your fellow humans in the womb? Do they not deserve to live?

"Deserves got nothin' ta do with it." - William Munny (the film Unforgiven)

"Deserves" belong to that perfect world that we do not live in.

 

[The Papist]

Nearly everyone is opposed to killing other people. Including killing even 'potential' people. Or even to causing suffering of any kind, to any life form. But that is not the world we are living in. So we are forced to make choices about killing and suffering and good and evil, ... on the blind. And as we do this, we are defining ourselves. Creating ourselves ... with each decision we are becoming ... this.

Just as God apparently intended.

You are basing it on YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you THINK God intended. I am simply saying that what God intended is what it is. How could it be otherwise? And what it is requires up to make these difficult decision on the blind. Each for our own selves.

"Deserves got nothin' ta do with it." - William Munny (the film Unforgiven)

"Deserves" belong to that perfect world that we do not live in.

My respect for you continues to increase, as I see that your positions are not just tired pro-abortion talking points, but rather are grounded in a consistent moral position. If you’re willing to, do you think you could summarize your view of morality for me? What makes something right or wrong?

 

[sun rise]

Catching up.

Assertion? Are you really that daft?

There are entire organizations out there who support and help abortion survivors.

I was wrong. It does happen but rarely. But I could not find out what happened in those cases

Existing laws, such as the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" of 2002, mandate that any infant born alive during an abortion is entitled to medical care. Furthermore, fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org clarify that both state and federal laws already provide protections for infants who are born alive, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, contradicting some claims that abortion survivors lack legal protection. Additionally, the debate often centers on emotional appeals rather than the actual scope and enforcement of existing laws.​

(and from another source)​

In just four states (Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Texas), 35 children were reported born alive during attempted abortions in 2020 and 2021. Florida reported an additional 8 cases in 2022.​

I am probably not making myself clear. The video shows a baby still in the sac of the mothers womb and then they broke the sac. When did it become a baby. Was it when the sac was pierced and the baby started to breath. Was it after they pulled it out of the womb? Was it still a baby when in the womb before they did the c-section?

I hope that clears up what I am talking about.

Yes. I typically don't watch videos - too busy. I used the thread title as my guide which was not your intent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

this isn’t an “abortion post”. Sorry if I don’t follow your moving goal post. You certainly can discuss that with the rest of the people on this post who are. I’m not.

If you're sincere, then maybe reflect on the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Then think about your long track record of anti-choice threads focused on the semantics of the word "baby" and how you created the expectation that a thread from you about the semantics of the word "baby" would also be about abortion.

BTW: since you tell us that the context of the thread isn't abortion, when are you going to say what context you did have in mind?

Is it an astrology thing? Is it about tax rules? Give us a hint here.

 

[Alien826]

I don't buy this. If we don't know if something is murder, should we just do it anyway? If a hunter sees a form that could be a person but might just be an animal, is it okay to shoot? Of course not. I think it's unquestionably true that a ""fetus"" (a Latin word meaning "offspring/child") is a person. But even if you're uncertain, does that mean it's okay?

"Murder" is actually a legal term. When someone has killed someone else he can be found guilty of murder (which is divided into different degrees), manslaughter, or found not not guilty because the killing is considered to be self defense. Sorry to be pedantic, but I have a point. Before Roe was overturned, in the USA, abortion was not murder. Now, it depends on which state you are in and what stage the pregnancy is at, what caused the pregnancy and so on.

My point is that murder is whatever the current law of wherever you are says it is, or isn't. In fact I don't think, though I'm open to correction, that abortion is called murder in any state that considers it a crime. Whatever. So when you say we don't know whether abortion is murder, that's not true. We know perfectly well. Just consult the legislation of whatever constituency you are in. Equally we know pretty much exactly what happens at each stage of the gestation process, from fertilized ovum to born baby. What remains is what rights we as a society decide to the unborn child, and that depends on lots of factors, pretty much all subjective.

 

[blü 2]

Facebook

www.facebook.com

The question comes from the video

God, according to the bible, has nothing against abortion or even infanticide.

For example:

Exodus 22:29-30 You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.​

(This was later renegotiated, but that doesn't alter the fact that the original request is attributed to God.)

Hosea 13: 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.​

And the massacres of surrendered populations, children and all, with the occasional exception of young women, to be distributed amongst the men eg Numbers 31:9-17, Joshua 6:17, 6:21, Judges 21:8-23 (&c).

 

[PureX]

My respect for you continues to increase, as I see that your positions are not just tired pro-abortion talking points, but rather are grounded in a consistent moral position. If you’re willing to, do you think you could summarize your view of morality for me? What makes something right or wrong?

In the Bible, the very first story lays out our predicament, and our fundamental error in the face of it.

We humans were told that we could live in paradise so long as we not "eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil". But we humans took it into our heads that God had only said this to keep us from knowing what He knows, and thereby being His equals. So we "ingested" (took the idea into our minds and hearts) the presumption that we DO possess the knowledge of good and evil. But this was a lie. Because mankind cannot steal from God that which God has forbidden us to possess. Nevertheless, it was a lie that we wanted to believe, and so we chose to believe it. And that was our first and greatest sin.The sin that leads us into all other sins. The sin of presuming that we possess the knowledge of good and evil, and that we are therefor some sort of 'demigods', ourselves. Put on Earth to pass judgment on all we survey.

And the result of our having adopted this lie was that we began to judge everything we encountered according to our own selfish likes and dislikes. We even judged our own selves, and found ourselves wanting. Imperfect. And ugly. And we set ourselves to work trying to "correct" all Creation; to make it suit OUR selfish ideas of what it should be. And the more and the harder we tried, the worse we've made things. And this is still our crazy endeavor to this day. It's how we lost touch with the Eden we were given.

The point of this is to say that morality is not really our purview. At least it was never intended to be according to the Bible. And the more we try to judge and condemn and correct the world and each other "morally", the bigger the mess we make of it all. Our purpose was never to be "moral". We were never given the knowledge to make that assessment. Our purpose was to be humble, and thankful, and joyous, and kind. To find the grace and the beauty and the value in each other, and in the world. Not to pass judgment on it, and fight with it and with each other to "fix it all" according to our own liking.

By the way, no one is "pro-abortion".

 

[Kenny]

I don't understand. If that's all you want, what's the point you are making? 'Fetus" and "baby" are both labels that are applied to different stages of the process we call pregnancy. In this case we see a fetus becoming a baby. There doesn't seem to be an obvious point where we can draw a line between the two terms and so what? I don't imagine that the doctors and/or nurses attending the event stop what they are doing to wonder "What should we call this?".

In short, what's the point of the thread? It has to be more than you say here.

I find it interesting when someone says that while it is in the womb, it is a fetus. Here we have one in the sac (not yet born) and yet outside of the womb. Does that mess up the position that when in the womb it is a fetus? Is it technically still in the womb if it is in the sac since they opened the womb? Did it become a baby when the broke the sac? If it is a baby in the sac because it is outside the womb, was it really just a fetus when inside the womb?

It just raises so many question IMV

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find it interesting when someone says that while it is in the womb, it is a fetus. Here we have one in the sac (not yet born) and yet outside of the womb. Does that mess up the position that when in the womb it is a fetus? Is it technically still in the womb if it is in the sac since they opened the womb? Did it become a baby when the broke the sac? If it is a baby in the sac because it is outside the womb, was it really just a fetus when inside the womb?

It just raises so many question IMV

Do you think that an amniotic sac is a womb? It's not.

 

[sun rise]

I find it interesting when someone says that while it is in the womb, it is a fetus. Here we have one in the sac (not yet born) and yet outside of the womb. Does that mess up the position that when in the womb it is a fetus? Is it technically still in the womb if it is in the sac since they opened the womb? Did it become a baby when the broke the sac? If it is a baby in the sac because it is outside the womb, was it really just a fetus when inside the womb?

It just raises so many question IMV

We have the emotional and religious as well as technical meanings for the word "fetus". Semantic arguments are not productive IMO. The real question is "when does a fetus become a human being/person"? It already is as a zygote? When it becomes a fetus? At ensoulment? When it is vaiable outside the womb? At birth? It's much better to debate that question rather than engage in a semantic argument.

This is the dictionary definition: When egg and sperm meet, a zygote is formed and quickly begins dividing to become an embryo. As pregnancy progresses the embryo becomes a fetus. The fetus becomes a neonate or newborn at birth.

 

[anotherneil]

No one who works in healthcare with a clinical background worth their salt would ever say "a fetus can survive from an abortion".

I'm the one who wrote that, I don't have a clinical background, and I never claimed to have a clinical background. What does someone, who does have a clinical background (regardless of whether or not they're "worth their salt"), have to do with this?

What you're saying is vague; are you saying that there's no such thing as a person who was subjected to an attempted abortion while they were a fetus who was able to survive it, and in some cases, are still alive today as adults? If that's the case, then you'd be wrong.

If this is about deliberately misconstruing or quibbling to try to win debate points with your friends, supporters, or those who are on your side, I'm saying that an unborn child, in the fetal stage - as opposed to an unborn child in the germinal or embryonic, can or would be able to survive from an abortion. I'm not referring to a baby that survived a botched abortion as a fetus after the fact; what I said was tense independent, so I think anyone who reads that sentence and understands the scenario would know how to correctly construe what I said (except maybe you, I suppose).

If you want to impress people and win debate points, I don't care, and I don't mind providing clarification when it may be called for.

A custodian could make that mistake, but not a clinician.

How do you know that there is a mistake? You seem to be portraying yourself as a subject matter expert - are you a clinician?

If you don't say whether or not you're a clinician, then I'll take it that you are not a clinician. If you say that you are or are not a clinician, I'll take your word for it, but if you say that you aren't or won't say, then I'd like to know why you're speaking with authoritative-sounding articulation.

You are definitely not one of these,

That's correct; I'm neither a custodian nor a clinician, and I never claimed to be either one of those.

and I will remind you pretending to be a clinician is a crime in almost every country.

You're reminding me? This implies you said this before, but you've never said this before, so you either don't know what the definition of "remind" is and proper way to use the word, or maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

That's right, this thread is not about you,

Let's keep it that way.

nor is it about abortion as per the OP's words also.

I'm not the one who brought it up in this thread; another forum member did & I was simply responding to them.

This is a thread in the science and technology forum, so if you want to be scientific about a topic, keep talking.

Ok, thank you; I appreciate it.

Otherwise, if you want to report me because I called you out for invading this thread to use of a slur like "abortionist", go ahead.

I'm not aware of this being a violation of forum rules; are you saying that it is?

 

[GoodAttention]

I'm the one who wrote that, I don't have a clinical background, and I never claimed to have a clinical background. What does someone, who does have a clinical background (regardless of whether or not they're "worth their salt"), have to do with this?

What you're saying is vague; are you saying that there's no such thing as a person who was subjected to an attempted abortion while they were a fetus who was able to survive it, and in some cases, are still alive today as adults? If that's the case, then you'd be wrong.

If this is about deliberately misconstruing or quibbling to try to win debate points with your friends, supporters, or those who are on your side, I'm saying that an unborn child, in the fetal stage - as opposed to an unborn child in the germinal or embryonic, can or would be able to survive from an abortion. I'm not referring to a baby that survived a botched abortion as a fetus after the fact; what I said was tense independent, so I think anyone who reads that sentence and understands the scenario would know how to correctly construe what I said (except maybe you, I suppose).

If you want to impress people and win debate points, I don't care, and I don't mind providing clarification when it may be called for.


How do you know that there is a mistake? You seem to be portraying yourself as a subject matter expert - are you a clinician?

If you don't say whether or not you're a clinician, then I'll take it that you are not a clinician. If you say that you are or are not a clinician, I'll take your word for it, but if you say that you aren't or won't say, then I'd like to know why you're speaking with authoritative-sounding articulation.


That's correct; I'm neither a custodian nor a clinician, and I never claimed to be either one of those.


You're reminding me? This implies you said this before, but you've never said this before, so you either don't know what the definition of "remind" is and proper way to use the word, or maybe you're confusing me with someone else.


Let's keep it that way.


I'm not the one who brought it up in this thread; another forum member did & I was simply responding to them.


Ok, thank you; I appreciate it.


I'm not aware of this being a violation of forum rules; are you saying that it is?

Good.

Now that you have admitted that you do not have a clinical background, your opinion as someone who “works” in “healthcare” can be put into perspective.

Enjoy your day amigo.

 

[Alien826]

I find it interesting when someone says that while it is in the womb, it is a fetus. Here we have one in the sac (not yet born) and yet outside of the womb. Does that mess up the position that when in the womb it is a fetus? Is it technically still in the womb if it is in the sac since they opened the womb? Did it become a baby when the broke the sac? If it is a baby in the sac because it is outside the womb, was it really just a fetus when inside the womb?

It just raises so many question IMV

It's just words. It was itself and it didn't "become" anything just by being born. Call it what you will.

I don't think it raises any questions that mean much. We can call it a hoobalboobalum while it is partially in and partially out of the womb, it still wouldn't make it anything other than what it is.

 

[anotherneil]

Good.

Now that you have admitted that you do not have a clinical background, your opinion as someone who “works” in “healthcare” can be put into perspective.

Enjoy your day amigo.

Thanks you; you enjoy your day as well.

I'd say the same goes for you as you have chosen respond to my post and forgo answering my question about whether or not you're a clinician, and I said that I would take it that you're not a clinician, either.

Now, let's put your "perspective" into perspective:

Yes it does put things into a perspective, but only up to a point. If you're implying that one must be a clinician or have a clinical background in order to be qualified to figure out what a baby is or that they're looking at one, then you're playing the appeal to authority game.

If someone sees another person being present somewhere, they don't have to be a clinician or have a clinical background in order to confirm that the person they saw was a human being, such as for testifying as a witness in a court of law & in the same vein, I don't need to be a clinician or have a clinical background in order to say that I saw a baby in an incubator in a NICU, and a person watching a video of a baby in a water sac during a cesarean birth doesn't have to be a clinician or have a clinical background to know that they're looking at a baby.

There are non-clinical physicians, and I think no one would dispute that they're subject matter experts; same goes with someone with a degree in biology, especially human biology - they're not clinical, yet they're subject matter experts too. Even lawyers with no biological or clinical background of any kind could be subject matter experts; they're not subject matter experts with the capacity to practice medicine, but when it comes to legal aspects of medical issues, they are - if they took health care law courses in laws school, or can be.

 

[Kenny]

Do you think that an amniotic sac is a womb? It's not.

True… true. Are you saying that the amniotic sac is not part of a womb and it creates a biosphere that is not part of the woman’s body?