Abortion derail from the Active Shooter thread

[Carrikature]

A "foetus" is an unborn baby

"Google baby" was your example. And you should be ashamed of your effort.

Source: http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/pregnancy/art-20047208?pg=2

Your first visit will focus mainly on assessing your overall health, identifying any risk factors and determining your baby's gestational age. Your health care provider will ask detailed questions about your health history. Be honest. The answers you provide will help you and your baby receive the best care. If you're uncomfortable discussing your health history in front of your partner, schedule a private consultation.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/stages/fetal-development/fetal-growth-weeks-5-8/

Week 6

Hard to believe: though he's no bigger than a lentil, your baby already has a beating heart! By the middle of this week, his cardiac muscles have formed and begun fluttery little flexing movements. This mini -version of the human heart is your baby's first working organ.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.babycenter.com/0_the-ultimate-pregnancy-to-do-list-first-trimester_10341205.bc?page=3

Follow your baby's development
Sign up for BabyCenter's free email newsletters and each week you'll learn exactly what's going on with both your pregnancy and your baby.

© Copyright Original Source

And that's just a small sampling of resources for pregnant women that uses the term "baby". Now, to accept your challenge, I googled "having a baby", and the following results were included in the top 50 results:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11674[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11675[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11676[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11677[/ATTACH]

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fetus

The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.

© Copyright Original Source

So, please stop misspelling the term (which is why I put your misspelling in quotes)



No one implied that baby meant fetus exclusively. Just like fruit does not mean orange exclusively.

It's a colloquialism people use to describe their general abdominal area. Quit being pedantic.

But it could refer to a small piano, if that person were so inclined. The term "baby" is a very broad term that encompasses several different things. My niece is pregnant with her first baby. My other niece took her baby to see Santa today. My baby just went back to college. My brother's car is his baby. My best friend's brother calls his dog his baby. Trying to dismiss all others in favor of the most popular usage is wrong.

And as I said, that may be the most common usage (to describe the stage otherwise known as "infant"), but it still does not in any way invalidate its common usage as describing a fetus, a toddler, a grown woman, or a powder blue mustang.

Again, please use a more technical term than "baby" which is not a stage of human growth and development.

Still confused?

[Christianbookworm]

Is a premature baby a fetus or an infant? Or a fetus that left too early and should have stayed in for the resto of the gestational period?

[Bill the Cat]

Still confused?

Not at all. My argument was that "baby" is a colloquial term, and when used of a human being, it encompasses more stages than just infancy. Equating baby = infant exclusively is fallacious. That's been my point all along, and all of those examples support that premise.

[Bill the Cat]

Wrong. A blastocyst is one stage the human individual experiences in normal growth and development. Human hairs, oocytes, skin cells, etc are not separate individual members of our species traveling that path.

[Christianbookworm]

Wrong. A blastocyst is one stage the human individual experiences in normal growth and development. Human hairs, oocytes, skin cells, etc are not separate individual members of our species traveling that path.

It would be wrong to go back in time when FF was a blastocyst and somehow squish him, right?

[Carrikature]

I have yet to hear anyone before you suggest that an unborn baby is not alive.

Nothing I've said so far suggested anything of the sort, either. It's certainly not black and white, though. After all, 'alive' is a pretty nebulous term. It runs into the same issues as 'species', where differentiation is as much descriptive as anything else. We have some pretty good criteria that let us determine the majority of cases, but there are places where those criteria don't necessarily work. A perfect example is viruses which have ongoing debate over whether or not they count as 'alive'. I think they qualify, but it's a legitimate question.

When it comes to stages of development, it's far from simple. No one questions that plants are alive, but I don't think anyone would seriously suggest a seed is. With plants, though, we have a pretty good line at germination. Animal development isn't nearly that clear cut. There are stages at which a developing fetus exhibits response to stimuli, for example, but it's not a given for the entire cycle. Growth is pretty standard, but reproductive ability isn't. Organization and metabolism happen across all stages. Adaptation is questionable. I'm pretty sure there are points where homeostasis is maintained by the mother, not by the fetus. We can't necessarily use 'self-aware' as a distinction, either, since there's no agreed upon definition for what that is, let alone when it begins.

I think we can say pretty well that at or about 10-12 weeks (fetal stage), it's close enough to 'alive' to count. Before that, I'm not convinced we can call it that. Miscarriages are pretty common up to about 10-13 weeks, iirc, and there's a really good reason that expecting mothers breathe a sigh of relief when they hear that first heartbeat. The ability to survive on its own (even counting assistance) is a pretty big factor, too, even though it's not a criterion used in the definition of 'alive'.

[Carrikature]

Not at all. My argument was that "baby" is a colloquial term, and when used of a human being, it encompasses more stages than just infancy. Equating baby = infant exclusively is fallacious. That's been my point all along, and all of those examples support that premise.

Oh I got that. What's rich is seeing you insist someone else use a technical term when you've been defending colloquial terminology.

[Carrikature]

Is a premature baby a fetus or an infant? Or a fetus that left too early and should have stayed in for the resto of the gestational period?

Infant. Birth is the clear dividing line, no matter when or how it occurs.

[Catholicity]

Nothing I've said so far suggested anything of the sort, either. It's certainly not black and white, though. After all, 'alive' is a pretty nebulous term. It runs into the same issues as 'species', where differentiation is as much descriptive as anything else. We have some pretty good criteria that let us determine the majority of cases, but there are places where those criteria don't necessarily work. A perfect example is viruses which have ongoing debate over whether or not they count as 'alive'. I think they qualify, but it's a legitimate question.

When it comes to stages of development, it's far from simple. No one questions that plants are alive, but I don't think anyone would seriously suggest a seed is. With plants, though, we have a pretty good line at germination. Animal development isn't nearly that clear cut. There are stages at which a developing fetus exhibits response to stimuli, for example, but it's not a given for the entire cycle. Growth is pretty standard, but reproductive ability isn't. Organization and metabolism happen across all stages. Adaptation is questionable. I'm pretty sure there are points where homeostasis is maintained by the mother, not by the fetus. We can't necessarily use 'self-aware' as a distinction, either, since there's no agreed upon definition for what that is, let alone when it begins.

I think we can say pretty well that at or about 10-12 weeks (fetal stage), it's close enough to 'alive' to count. Before that, I'm not convinced we can call it that. Miscarriages are pretty common up to about 10-13 weeks, iirc, and there's a really good reason that expecting mothers breathe a sigh of relief when they hear that first heartbeat. The ability to survive on its own (even counting assistance) is a pretty big factor, too, even though it's not a criterion used in the definition of 'alive'.

They start looking for a heartbeat around 6 weeks on ultrasound. I went in at 7 weeks. 128 beats per minute and visible motion from the little active one.

[Carrikature]

They start looking for a heartbeat around 6 weeks on ultrasound. I went in at 7 weeks. 128 beats per minute and visible motion from the little active one.

Right. The trick is that heartbeats and movements can happen without it being 'controlled', if that makes sense. We can keep people 'alive' by making their heart beat and using artificial breathing, but we don't really consider that as being alive.

[firstfloor]

Wrong. A blastocyst is one stage the human individual experiences in normal growth and development. Human hairs, oocytes, skin cells, etc are not separate individual members of our species traveling that path.

So, it would appear that your objection to abortion is no more than confusion over a dictionary definition.

[Cow Poke]

So, it would appear that your objection to abortion is no more than confusion over a dictionary definition.

[Jedidiah]

A blastocyst is not a part of a human being. Since it is not a non human organism, it is by definition a human being. The ONLY reason to deny this is to try to justify killing them.

[Tassman]

Because the poor little babies can't speak for themselves - while you and your ilk are advocating for their murder, we're trying to give them a chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, first, they need life.

Oh spare me.

This emotional claptrap of yours is dangerous as well as being inaccurate; it promotes Christian terrorism of the sort we see with attacks on Planned Parenthood. And it's not just one deranged man:

duVergne Gaines, the national clinic access project director at the Feminist Majority Foundation,

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...nce-continues/

And here:



http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...inic-violence/http://abortion.procon.org/view.reso...ourceID=004208

[Cow Poke]

Because the poor little babies can't speak for themselves - while you and your ilk are advocating for their murder, we're trying to give them a chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, first, they need life.

Oh spare me.

Yes, that's what they're asking.