Does A Fetus Become A Baby When It Pops Out?

I often wonder how certain groups can call un unborn baby a fetus, until the fetus pops out and suddenly becomes a baby? Is it justification for MURDER?

Just a thought.

DLMK

Advertisements

Does A Fetus Become A Baby When It Pops Out?

30 thoughts on “Does A Fetus Become A Baby When It Pops Out?

  1. You seem fairly well educated. From this angle anyway. Maybe some down home southern home cookin would do you some good…
    Try this on– ” You breed em- You feed em”
    If that does not support the truth then use this one ” Thou Shall Not Murder ”
    You may still find yourself reeling out by this big (non)- Mystery at this point, so you can go directly to an old standby; What moron would think that CHANGING THE NAME from Baby to ” Fetus ” would change the fact that an actual person is being murdered.
    If you are still in your lonely, weak minded frame of mind then ask yourself this here;
    ” Self- What would you call a person, half born and half unborn” then imagine that picture. then imagine you asking a very dumb question while trying to somehow JUSTIFY murder.
    If you still are dull by now, carry on, you are a rare breed to still remain clouded on such a simple issue. It is no case for Columbo, even if you spin it to try and make It an option. Right is still right, wrong is still wrong. Same topic, Same answer.

    Like

    • @TJ Petri

      What moron would think that CHANGING THE NAME from Baby to ” Fetus ” would change the fact that an actual person is being murdered.

      The terms ‘baby’ and ‘fetus’ describe two different times in fetal development. Babies and fetuses share some characteristics, but not all. There are relevant differences physiologically – brain function comes to the top of my mind – which is by medical, legal and ethical standards how we define conscious human life. You cannot murder what isn’t alive yet, by these definitions that are held in the medical and legal professions.

      Don’t trust me, look this stuff up, see for yourself.

      trying to somehow JUSTIFY murder.

      Murder as defined by *you* with the backing of “you say so”… which in the overall scheme of things means close to diddly-squat. So, again, you are welcome to hold opinion that does not coincide with available fact; it is not however, a persuasive or logical position to hold.

      Now, if you’d like to go about redefining what ‘alive’ means, that is a different story altogether as I’m pretty sure there are reasons why we have the currently acceptable standard of what alive is.

      Like

      • “The terms ‘baby’ and ‘fetus’ describe two different times in fetal development. Babies and fetuses share some characteristics, but not all. There are relevant differences physiologically – brain function comes to the top of my mind – which is by medical, legal and ethical standards how we define conscious human life. You cannot murder what isn’t alive yet, by these definitions that are held in the medical and legal professions.”
        Mary Anne Warrens personhood argument really? You didn’t even factor in potential, while she did. Her’s doesn’t hold up and neither does your trivialized version.

        Like

      • I’ve grown quite tired of this.

        Two haploid cells (sperm and egg, 23 chromosomes each) form a diploid cell (called zygote, 46 chromosomes with 23 from mother and father respectively). Gender and other attributes can already be discerned. “In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo”. It is a genetically distinct and unique entity. It will (if everything goes as planned) grow to be a human adult. One doesn’t become a member of the species homo sapiens (definition of human being) somewhere along the way.

        Murder=premeditated, often unlawful, killing of one human being by another
        Life=condition that discerns plants and animals from inorganic matter
        fetal development=http://umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/fetal-development

        What you argue is termination on the grounds of lack of personhood. There are plenty of things alive that don’t have a brain. And you can’t argue lack of personhood if you fail to consider potential.

        Like

  2. @TJ Petri

    The inside outside uterus thing does not fly, however , Do you walk through your front door going by Albert and go out calling yourself Henry?

    Because you say so does not refute a statement. Let me know when you see a fetus walking through a door, celebrating birthday, or heck even breathing air and then we can talk about your erroneous claim that fetus=baby.

    One can no more erase the immoral act of abortion than one can write the word DARKNESS on their kitchen window to cease the sun from shining.

    In your opinion. The much darker option is regarding women as incubators first and people second. Campaigning for disregarding half of humanity’s basic human rights in misguided crusade for life is, by far, the greater evil.

    Like

    • Wow. You negate your point using your own words. and by the way, fetus has a meaning. Where is the “statement ” issued you are vowing to uphold that human rights come before baby humans rights? I would love to know the author.

      Like

      • Wow. You negate your point using your own words. and by the way, fetus has a meaning.

        The idea behind using blockquotes and keeping a structured argument going is that you need to show how a person is wrong, or how the argument in question is weak.

        Just saying a point is negated and not providing they why or how is not very helpful, or useful in terms of argumentation.

        To reiterate, the burden of proof lies with you to show how a fetus and a baby are the same, despite the very real physiological differences. Here is where you would cite your sources that support your claim that fetus=baby. Here is where you provide the medical evidence that says fetus = baby.

        Or here is where you admit that your claim is unsupported by fact, but rather an argument based on sentimentality rather than rationality.

        Like

    • Oh boy, you are really jumping through hoops here. That’s alright. Justifying murder is never easy.

      “Oh, and pregnancy *isn’t* an invasive procedure, fraught with risks and peril for the woman? Apparently, your awareness of the side effects of pregnancy needs to be addressed.”
      Oh, and abortion isn’t an invasive procedure with side effects? Come on, the operative terms here are temporary and permanent. Which is why your analogy fails.It is you who need to brush up on your argument instead of spilling out 15 year old rhetoric. I suggest you start by researching zygote.

      “Oh, so my organs are not being used while “providing assistance” to another. Tell me more.”
      You failed to understand my statement. Try again.

      “No kidding. And the fine forced-birth contingent here as been busy confabulating and doing their best to obfuscate the differences between said levels.”
      What a string of words. You even felt satisfied after writing that, didn’t you? We are actually focusing on features they all have in common. And argue from there.

      “Really?”
      Yes.

      “And why doesn’t level of development come into question? You can’t just handwave this away because the facts of fetal development don’t support your position.”
      Can you produce any other instance where level of development is justification for murder?

      “What you are avoiding is the fallaciously false equivalence that lies at the heart of what you’ve been arguing up till now “fetus=baby”, while in (medical and scientific)fact fetus does not equal baby.”
      Well mister fallacy. I’m actually arguing fetus=human and baby=human. You somehow, through some twisted logical fallacy, connected these two to be fetus=baby. It was you, who in the beginning, conceded the point of humanity. “Assign whatever level of humanity you’d like to the fetus.” Even though i don’t care if you do or not. Again start by researching zygote.

      “I think women deserve “basic inherent rights” first as they are fully formed, fully rights bearing human beings.”
      By that, you must grant women the right to kill her infant.

      “Wow. Okay, the next staph infection you get please refrain from taking antibiotics. Polio vaccinations – let’s get rid of them because in regards to natural phenomena we’re all slaves. Do you cut your nails? Letting them grow is a natural phenomena as well, how dare you go against nature….”
      You tend to throw words around like fallacious. Which is exactly what your conclusion to my statement is. It doesn’t follow that no action can be taken. Except to you maybe.

      “No, what I see is people harassing and obstructing women attempting to obtain a legal medical procedure.”
      I agree, that is the wrong course of action. It’s also not relevant to our argument.

      “I see support for legislation that makes it harder or even impossible for women to get a legal medical procedure.”
      Please check what legislation means and what follows towards legality.

      “So, rather than focusing on a solution that would actually respect women and their autonomy , the anti-woman forced birth advocates go directly at women and their rights.”
      So your solution is to allow them to kill their unborn? That definitely screams respect…

      “And that is why I am here, defending women against those who seek to revoke their basic humanity in a misguided crusade for “life”.”
      I’m here because i wouldn’t let your convulsions go unanswered. I never had any hope of swaying you from your position. But i will stand up against anyone who defends and actively promotes genocide.

      Like

      • Oh boy, you are really jumping through hoops here. That’s alright. Justifying murder is never easy.

        Considering the currently accepted definitions of murder, abortion and fetal development. I have nothing that comes close to the having to justify murder.

        Of course, when we let you define murder, abortion and fetal development in your own way, not necessarily jiving with reality, I can see where you could be coming from.

        Oh, and abortion isn’t an invasive procedure with side effects? Come on, the operative terms here are temporary and permanent.

        Oh you mean like the fact that terminating a pregnancy is safer that carrying to term? I was negligent in mentioning that, my apologies.

        spilling out 15 year old rhetoric.

        Listing the side effects of pregnancy is rhetoric now? Hmm, it seems quite relevant to the discussion along with the fact that some 800 women die every day from pregnancy and pregnancy related causes. These facts help dispel the heavily romanticized notion that some people hold that pregnancy is all sherry and giggles for women; while clearly, it is not.

        What a string of words. You even felt satisfied after writing that, didn’t you?

        I did. 🙂 Should I slow it down for you? Out of courtesy and respect of course; I’d like you to understand what I’m saying, and not have you guess at my intentions.

        Can you produce any other instance where level of development is justification for murder?

        When brain activity ceases, medically and legally that person is considered dead. A fetus, with no brain activity (for much of its gestational period) is therefore not alive by our standards. You cannot murder what isn’t alive. This is the commonly accepted definition of being alive – accepted by both the medical and legal community.

        It seems you have your own definition of murder and how and when it can apply, but as I said to TJ, it is merely your unsupported opinion, which in argumentation informally or formally speaking, means very little.

        I’m actually arguing fetus=human and baby=human. You somehow, through some twisted logical fallacy, connected these two to be fetus=baby.

        Oh so then you’ll stop incorrectly referring to the various stages of human development in order to shore up your lousy rhetorical position? I doubt this, but full marks if you do.

        It’s always helpful to point out which fallacy is being discussed and how it is being used in the argument, as you haven’t I’ll assume that you are mistaken in making that claim.

        It was you, who in the beginning, conceded the point of humanity. “Assign whatever level of humanity you’d like to the fetus.”

        Absolutely. Although this isn’t really a ‘gotcha’ moment here because if you follow my argument which is that ‘no human gets to use another humans organs without their consent’ the level of humanity assigned to the fetus is irrelevant.

        We do not let other full members of society override our will when it comes to use of our organs – hence the kidney example. What you are arguing for is for some special dispensation be given to fetuses that allows them to subordinate a woman’s bodily autonomy to their own fetal needs.

        These supererogatory rights you mandate for fully human fetuses would deny women their bodily autonomy and deny them status as fully human beings. Thus, a woman’s consent to the use of her organs is a necessary feature of this debate, and should not be discounted in a haphazard attempt to save ‘life’.

        You tend to throw words around like fallacious.

        Stop arguing fallaciously and I’ll stop, I promise.

        Which is exactly what your conclusion to my statement is. It doesn’t follow that no action can be taken. Except to you maybe.

        Actually here is your statement : SN:”In regards to natural phenomena we are all slaves. The unborn is in its natural environment.”

        You are saying that because a phenomena is “natural” it is somehow “right” or “good”. Measles are a natural phenomena, as is cancer does that make them “good” or somehow more “right in” the scheme of things. Your statement is a exactly what the naturalistic fallacy is, and I called you on it because it is crappy argumentation. So, if you don’t like being called on fallacies, stop using them.

        So your solution is to allow them to kill their unborn? That definitely screams respect…

        I knew you couldn’t resist misnaming the fetus, you were doing so well too. My solution, and I admit it is imperfect, is that we need to give women the choice as to what there reproductive futures are going to be, as they are best arbiters of whether they are capable of starting or adding to a family.

        When medical technology advances to a point where we can incubate every unwanted fetus with no detrimental effects for the mother, I will be completely onboard with not having abortions. Till then, women’s human rights and autonomy must be preserved and protected.

        Like

  3. I don’t really need to jump in here, as I think the point has been made that the ” woman’s rights” argument does not hold water. ( No pun intended )-
    I also think that the term fetus just lends itself to murder and is easier on the conscience than baby is. Bottom line from my angle, it is straight up murder. Slice my dog up anytime before my child.

    Like

  4. @Gynjii

    One of best friends – a woman – survived an abortion.

    Oh, thus one anecdote makes it okay to remove the rights of women.

    Hmmm…I had a friend that had an abortion and her life was just fine, even better as it wasn’t the right time for her to start a family.

    Are we even now? That was easy.

    Shoo troll, shoo. Go try to justify murdering your offspring elsewhere.

    Oh! you mean combat the steady stream of forced-birth mendacity that is harmful to women?. Nah, you’re here right now, thus the case for women can be put forward here. 🙂

    Like

    • “Assign whatever level of humanity you’d like to the fetus. It is a woman’s body and organs being used, and thus her choice if she wishes to remain pregnant.”
      So your position is. Even it is a human being, its rights can not outweigh those of another human being even if they are more fundamental (right to life vs right to own body)?
      By this logic i could (morally justified) torture and murder you for stealing from me.

      “Because in the uterus and outside of the uterus are two different things? Is that really a difficult distinction to make?” Inside and outside your house are two different things as well. If you leave your house you have the right to life, but in it you don’t?

      “Pretty much everything with regards to respiration, locomotion, eating and elimination of waste.”
      None of these are a requisite to rights. The right to life is an inherent human right. It doesn’t matter how you consume food, how you breathe, how you move and what level of mobility you are capable of or how your bodily waste is taken care of.

      Like

      • . Even it is a human being, its rights can not outweigh those of another human being even if they are more fundamental (right to life vs right to own body)?

        When does another human beings rights supersede those of another? Do you owe me a kidney if I am in mortal need of one? No, you are not obligated to give me your kidney even if it means my life.

        Use of a woman’s organs is dependent on her consent and her right to bodily autonomy. Granting another use of ones organs/body against your will is slavery.

        If you leave your house you have the right to life, but in it you don’t?

        Right because inside and outside the uterus are completely like walking out of a house. Try again.

        The right to life is an inherent human right.

        So is not to be enslaved to another. So, no you don’t get to throw women under the bus in your valiant quest for “life”.

        It doesn’t matter how you consume food, how you breathe, how you move and what level of mobility you are capable of or how your bodily waste is taken care of.

        If you read carefully I was responding to the erroneous notion that fetuses and babies are somehow the same. Those physiological characteristics mentioned show they are *not* the same.

        Like

    • “Do you owe me a kidney if I am in mortal need of one? No, you are not obligated to give me your kidney even if it means my life.”
      This requires you to permanently give up part of your body through an invasive procedure. It doesn’t compare to nurturing and sheltering a human being. Abortion is more analogous to denial of assistance and because this assistance is inconvenient the unborn can be killed?

      “Right because inside and outside the uterus are completely like walking out of a house.”
      A shit in location from inside the womb to outside by birth or c-section is an arbitrary qualification for the right to life.

      “If you read carefully I was responding to the erroneous notion that fetuses and babies are somehow the same. Those physiological characteristics mentioned show they are *not* the same”.
      They are the same in very important aspects. Embryo, fetus, infant, child. These are all just terms we use to define level of development. At all stages we are talking about a human being. Level of development does not begin to come into question if you talk about basic inherent rights.

      “Granting another use of ones organs/body against your will is slavery.” In regards to natural phenomena we are all slaves. The unborn is in its natural environment. It does exactly what a human being at this stage is supposed to do. Can an argument be made to remove the child if the woman does not want to carry it to term? Certainly. Once the artificial womb can support any stage of development and pregnancy is no longer mandatory. But extinguishing a life on these grounds is completely out of proportion.

      Like

      • @Salia Namai

        This requires you to permanently give up part of your body through an invasive procedure.

        Oh, and pregnancy *isn’t* an invasive procedure, fraught with risks and peril for the woman? Apparently, your awareness of the side effects of pregnancy needs to be addressed. Please see the Liz Library list of what can happen to women during pregnancy. Then think again before you attempt to justify trying to force women to carry to term.

        Abortion is more analogous to denial of assistance and because this assistance is inconvenient the unborn can be killed?

        Oh, so my organs are not being used while “providing assistance” to another. Tell me more.

        These are all just terms we use to define level of development.

        No kidding. And the fine forced-birth contingent here as been busy confabulating and doing their best to obfuscate the differences between said levels.

        Level of development does not begin to come into question if you talk about basic inherent rights.

        Really?

        And why doesn’t level of development come into question? You can’t just handwave this away because the facts of fetal development don’t support your position. What you are avoiding is the fallaciously false equivalence that lies at the heart of what you’ve been arguing up till now “fetus=baby”, while in (medical and scientific)fact fetus does not equal baby.

        I think women deserve “basic inherent rights” first as they are fully formed, fully rights bearing human beings.

        In regards to natural phenomena we are all slaves.

        Wow. Okay, the next staph infection you get please refrain from taking antibiotics. Polio vaccinations – let’s get rid of them because in regards to natural phenomena we’re all slaves. Do you cut your nails? Letting them grow is a natural phenomena as well, how dare you go against nature….

        Using the naturalistic fallacy to attempt to justify why we should denude women of their bodily autonomy doesn’t work.

        Once the artificial womb can support any stage of development and pregnancy is no longer mandatory.

        So where is the all the pro-life lobbying for this idea? Tell me, because I have not seen it anywhere, ever. No, what I see is people harassing and obstructing women attempting to obtain a legal medical procedure.

        I see support for legislation that makes it harder or even impossible for women to get a legal medical procedure.

        So, rather than focusing on a solution that would actually respect women and their autonomy , the anti-woman forced birth advocates go directly at women and their rights.

        And that is why I am here, defending women against those who seek to revoke their basic humanity in a misguided crusade for “life”.

        Like

    • Good point. In all 3 cases, you would have to kill something to avoid it continuing to live. You don’t need to kill something if it is not already alive. If ” fetuses” are not living beings, they would not need to be slaughtered. Also, why do they change the name to ” baby ” the second it leaves the womb? What has changed?

      Like

      • If ” fetuses” are not living beings, they would not need to be slaughtered.

        Assign whatever level of humanity you’d like to the fetus. It is a woman’s body and organs being used, and thus her choice if she wishes to remain pregnant. \

        Also, why do they change the name to ” baby ” the second it leaves the womb?

        Because in the uterus and outside of the uterus are two different things? Is that really a difficult distinction to make?

        What has changed?

        Pretty much everything with regards to respiration, locomotion, eating and elimination of waste.

        Like

      • Well, you are certainly correct on one point; it is a woman’s choice. The inside outside uterus thing does not fly, however , Do you walk through your front door going by Albert and go out calling yourself Henry?
        One can no more erase the immoral act of abortion than one can write the word DARKNESS on their kitchen window to cease the sun from shining.

        Like

  5. Science has determined the beginning of human life at the moment of conception. Just go and check the web for zygote. Whichever state of development (embryo, fetus, infant…) the human being is in, is no grounds for moral justification of termination.

    Like

      • These different labels allow to dehumanize, but most not by necessity do so. It is possible to say its not even a baby yet or it’s just a clump of cells therefore killing it is not a moral wrong. But to me this is an obvious fallacy since all of these terms are a description of the condition of being human. They describe a certain stage of human development. And stage of development can not be a justification for termination. An infant is less developed then a child, who is in turn less developed then a teenager, who is less developed then an adult. All of these retain their right to life based on the condition of being human. Simply because the unborn is less developed it can not lose its right to live.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s