SO anyway, yes, you can use the word
"baby" to describe an embryo/fetus, but
please chew on this:
Is "baby"
the most accurate, most correct word you
can use to describe the unborn?
That answer would be a resounding NO. So
you can call it a baby all day. I'm more
correct because I call it a fetus. Being
correct is very important in this debate.
Using emotional identifiers like "baby"
just points you out as an amature OR
someone unwilling to face the facts.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2121 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 01-31-08 09:40am
Eiri
wrote:
SO anyway, yes, you can use
the word "baby" to describe an
embryo/fetus, but please chew on this:
Is "baby"
the most accurate, most correct word you
can use to describe the unborn?
That answer would be a resounding NO. So
you can call it a baby all day. I'm more
correct because I call it a fetus. Being
correct is very important in this debate.
Using emotional identifiers like "baby"
just points you out as an amature OR
someone unwilling to face the
facts.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Re: Yes, Virginia, a fetus really is a baby...... Posted: 01-31-08 10:05am
Kypros
wrote:
I would personally like to make it clear
that I do not and have never denied that
foetuses are babies.
.
Yeah, I know. You're one of the few that
actually make sense.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 10:06am
Snug
wrote:
So, we have established the
following:
Fetuses are babies.
Fetuses are
parasites..
In a vernacular sense, ALL unborn babies,
both human and animal, are
"parasites"...... but not in a scientific
sense. Science reserves that label for
"true parasites" which are of a different
species than the host.
So, at least you admit that they are "baby
parasites".
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 10:10am
sistersister
wrote:
Call it the colloquial
baby.
And it just happens that 95% of our
conversation here is in the
vernacular/colloquial, so I think it's
appropriate:
I have no problem
acknowledging there's a developing baby in
one's uterus.
.
Great! Thanks!
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 10:12am
Snug
wrote:
So far, no one seems to be
denying that fetuses are babies, .
Ah, but we haven't heard from all active
posters........ yet.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 10:14am
[quote="Snug"]
Thus sayeth the American Heritage
Dictionary:[/q]
That's perfect for vernacular/colloquial
conversations.... you weren't looking for
the scientific definition, right?
Snug
wrote:
Even Mr. Dictionary himself would have to
concede that this particular definition
does not require the parasite and host to
be of different species.
.
Indeed I do. But that isn't a scientific
dictionary. MOST of them do:
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science &
Technology Online:
Parasitology Sections: Parasite-host
relationships; Parasite-parasite
relationships; Physiologic interactions;
Genetics; Immunology
The scientific study of parasites and of
parasitism. Parasitism is a type of
symbiosis and is defined as an intimate
association between an organism (parasite)
and [b]another, larger species[b] of
organism (host) upon which the parasite is
metabolically dependent. Implicit in this
definition is the concept that the host is
harmed, while the parasite benefits from
the association.
http://www.accesss
cience.com/abstract.aspx?id=488900&ref
erURL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.accessscience.com%2
fcontent.aspx%3fid%3d488900
Signed "Mr. Dictionary"
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Re: Switcheroo Posted: 01-31-08 10:18am
Birch
wrote:
I think I posted somewhere
that babies are never defined as fetuses.
I found that
odd..
It's just all word play. I
don't think it's a legitimate 'argument'
when it comes to abortion debate on either
side.
Since it's a false argument, I agree. But
it's obviously important to the prochoice
side, or certain posters wouldn't have
made an issue of it. And it's kinda
important to our side too, because it's a
"universally understood" term.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 10:25am
Eiri
wrote:
SO anyway, yes, you can use
the word "baby" to describe an
embryo/fetus, but please chew on this:
WOW.... I never thought I'd see this
day......
Eiri
wrote:
Is "baby" the most accurate, most correct
word you can use to describe the
unborn?
No single word can be "the most accurate"
in this case. "Fetus" could refer to the
gestating young of any animal species.
"Unborn human baby" or "human fetus" would
be more accurate terms.... but more to the
point, in an abortions discussion,
everyone knows what we're talking about..
so there's no pressing need for technical
"accuracy". Therefore shortening the term
to "baby" doesn't cause any problems,
IMO.
But thanks for your permission to call
them "babies" anyway!
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 10:26am
Snug
wrote:
Thus sayeth the American Heritage
Dictionary:
That's perfect for vernacular/colloquial
conversations.... you weren't looking for
the scientific definition, right?
Snug
wrote:
Even Mr. Dictionary himself would have to
concede that this particular definition
does not require the parasite and host to
be of different species.
.
Indeed I do. But that isn't a scientific
dictionary. MOST of them do:
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science &
Technology Online:
Parasitology Sections: Parasite-host
relationships; Parasite-parasite
relationships; Physiologic interactions;
Genetics; Immunology
The scientific study of parasites and of
parasitism. Parasitism is a type of
symbiosis and is defined as an intimate
association between an organism (parasite)
and [b]another, larger species[b] of
organism (host) upon which the parasite is
metabolically dependent. Implicit in this
definition is the concept that the host is
harmed, while the parasite benefits from
the association.
http://www.accesss
cience.com/abstract.aspx?id=488900&ref
erURL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.accessscience.com%2
fcontent.aspx%3fid%3d488900
Signed "Mr. Dictionary" [/quote]
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-31-08 10:35am
yodavater
wrote:
Snug
wrote:
Thus sayeth the American Heritage
Dictionary:
That's perfect for vernacular/colloquial
conversations.... you weren't looking for
the scientific definition, right?
Snug
wrote:
Even Mr. Dictionary himself would have to
concede that this particular definition
does not require the parasite and host to
be of different species.
.
Indeed I do. But that isn't a scientific
dictionary. MOST of them do:
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science &
Technology Online:
Parasitology Sections: Parasite-host
relationships; Parasite-parasite
relationships; Physiologic interactions;
Genetics; Immunology
The scientific study of parasites and of
parasitism. Parasitism is a type of
symbiosis and is defined as an intimate
association between an organism (parasite)
and another, larger species[b] of
organism (host) upon which the parasite is
metabolically dependent. Implicit in this
definition is the concept that the host is
harmed, while the parasite benefits from
the association.
http://www.accesss
cience.com/abstract.aspx?id=488900&ref
erURL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.accessscience.com%2
fcontent.aspx%3fid%3d488900
Signed "Mr. Dictionary"
If it's not a scientific definition, then
why is it prefaced by the word Biology?
Last I knew, biology is very much a
science.
Or are you saying that because the
American Heritage Dictionary is not a
science dictionary, its definitions are
not valid scientific definitions? Just
for giggles, let's look up
hexachlorophene:
n. An almost odorless white powder,
(C6HCl3OH)2CH2, used as a disinfectant and
as an antibacterial agent in soaps.
Sounds like a scientifically valid
definition to me.
And I don't have to prove that the little
inter-uterine parasite matches every
definition of the word "parasite" in every
dictionary. All it takes is one.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 17:20pm
Snug
wrote:
Or are you saying that because the
American Heritage Dictionary is not a
science dictionary, its definitions are
not valid scientific definitions?
.
Hardly. Many vernacular dictionaries have
perfectly valid definitions. But they are
not the BEST source for scientific
definitions.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Re: Switcheroo Posted: 01-31-08 17:24pm
yodavater
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
I think I posted somewhere
that babies are never defined as fetuses.
I found that
odd..
Oh, you're right, my "b". It was that a
homosapien fetus is never defined as a
human being or a person. Except by
prolife organizations and advocates, of
course.
But I digress...I do not wish to alter the
subject of this thread.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 17:36pm
Birch
wrote:
Oh, you're right, my "b". It was that a
homosapien fetus is never defined as a
human being or a person.
.
Not quite sure what you're saying here,
but surely you know it's impossible for a
human baby NOT to be a human being, right?
I mean, of what other species could it
possibly be?
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/hu·man
be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings)
noun 1. member of the human species: a
member of the species to which men and
women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens
Last edited by yodavater on 01-31-08 17:41pm; edited 1 time in total
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-31-08 17:40pm
You're looking up the wrong thing there,
yodavater...look up "fetus" and pay
special attention to the definitions
provided specifically for human fetus.
Look for the word 'person' or 'being'.
I have never denied that a fetus is human,
ever. I know a prochoice argument is that
it's not a "human being" or a "person".
I just don't care anymore because it
really doesn't change who I feel about it.
Women should have safe, legal access to
medical procedures and privacy about their
decisions between their doctors and
themselves. If she's paying for it, and
you don't know her and never will, why do
you wish to impose your will?
Dangit, I digress again...
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 01-31-08 17:45pm
Birch
wrote:
..look up "fetus"
Been there, done that, looked up all those
words in the past.. didn't see anything to
change my mind.
Birch
wrote:
I just don't care anymore because it
really doesn't change who I feel about it.
That's fine. I just wanted to try to
lessen the number of arguments over
terminology, and the thread on the word
"baby" seemed to be a good way to do
that.
Birch
wrote:
. If she's paying for it,
and you don't know her and never will, why
do you wish to impose your
will?.
For the same reason I wish to "impose my
will" whenever I hear about child abuse,
child neglect, child abandonment, etc.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1171 Location: ,
Thanks: 21
Thanked:8
Posted: 01-31-08 19:58pm
yodavater
wrote:
Snug
wrote:
So, we have established the
following:
Fetuses are babies.
Fetuses are
parasites..
In a vernacular sense, ALL unborn babies,
both human and animal, are
"parasites"...... but not in a scientific
sense. Science reserves that label for
"true parasites" which are of a different
species than the host.
So, at least you admit that they are "baby
parasites".
You have scientific proof the the embryo/
fetus does not in fact leech its nutrients
and oxygen out of the host/mother's body?
Post your proof please yoda: the medical
and scientific worlds look to be amazed.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-31-08 20:27pm
yodavater
wrote:
Been there, done that, looked up all those
words in the past.. didn't see anything to
change my mind.
No defense, I suppose. Prochoicers, your
belief that a fetus is not a human being
or person has been decided as legitimate
by the same processes that yodavater
follows for other semantic definitions.
Birch
wrote:
. If she's paying for it,
and you don't know her and never will, why
do you wish to impose your
will?.
For the same reason I wish to "impose my
will" whenever I hear about child abuse,
child neglect, child abandonment,
etc.[/quote]
Yeah, and what do you do about that?
Picket? Vote? Adopt children? Foster
parent? Donate? Big Brother programs?
Mentor programs? Post on message boards
how child abuse ticks you off?
Or is that just a convenient 'line' you
pull?
Don't forget that I said this, too:
Birch
wrote:
Women should have safe,
legal access to medical procedures and
privacy about their decisions between
their doctors and themselves.
I guess you think you should have a
preferential decision in this process.
