|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:05 pm
Note, this is not a rant. I tried my very best not to make it a rant. Instead, it is an actual question that I am wondering about, and would like others to speak their opinions.
Why is it, that when I'm in a debate with Pro-Choicers, or watching them debate with someone else, they keep using the word "Fetus" instead of "Baby"? I mean, I know fetus is the scientifically correct term, and so is baby. But I mena, why do they act so weird when you say "Why should an innocent baby be killed[...], etc.,", and reply with "It's not innocent because it has to be capable of guilt to be innocent, and you're just using 'baby' and an emotional ploy."
Huh? "Baby" to us is just as an emotional term as you using "Fetus" as an un-emotional term. Not only is it a correct term, since it, by definition, can be either a fetus and a born child, but it's obvious without a dictionary. And innocence is a starting point for everyone. Just because you're not capable of guilt, doesn't mean you aren't capable of innnocence. There's innocence and guilt. There's no "neutral" as you'd like for there to be, because innocence is the neutral.
-Anyway, I'm getting off the subject.
This isn't what confuses me, though. It's all obvious why they say that. It's to make their argument/debate more pro-choice friendly for their sake, I know. Or is it?
But this is what really bothers me. Just today I was reading someone's post on a thread in the ED about how "Abortion is Biblical". She said "There are no children in abortion. Just a fetus."
Well, naturally, I was appalled. Especially since this is coming from someone who's about 6 or 7 months pregnant, and who even said in her journal, (I'm snoopy at times)--"Only about 4 months until my daughter is born." She didn't say, "About four months until that worthless lump of cells is born.", or, "Four months until my product of conception is born." No, she said "Daughter". Her daughter is her child, so her statement was obviously false. Not only that, but now I know that she, including others, don't look at all unborn babies like they are products of conceptions or lumps of cells 24/7 - only when they want to justify abortion. But when they aren't getting an abortion and are carrying out the pregnancy, they say "Congratulations on your baby!", etc., and admit that it's worth something. They know the child's worth something. Oh, yeah. They do. We all do.
Then, after all of this, she says "It's worthless because it's not sentient." Wow.
When someone says that, and things like, "It's just a blob of flesh.", when you show them pictures of slaughtered unborn babies, they say, "Why should women have to be reminded of when they have to make such a difficult choice?"
There is so much wrong with this, it isn't even worth laughing at.
First of all, well, you all know #1. Second, if they are actually willing to support -and do- the things that this picture depicts, why are they so afraid to see the picture? After all, it's just a parasite. Right? Or are they going to, at some point, admit that the innocent unborn child is worth something? Or are they just going to keep switching around to what's best for their bennefit?
We should find out what they honestly think of the "parasite". Do they think it's worthless, or a baby? Do they know it's worth something, but are too scared to admit it and face the facts that they know what they're doing isn't right, because they've been brainwashed (or simply believe) that abortion is absoultely manditory for women, and that women will go back to being practically worthless like in the 1800's and some remote lands, or just "baby factories"? Or are they just eating their cake and having it, too?* Do you think they feel both ways about the fetus depending on the circumstances, for example, the classic "I want it, so it's worth something", saying?
*That was originally the correct term: If you "eat" your cake already, you won't "have" anymore. But since today's society is used to saying "Have some cake." instead of saying "Eat some cake.", there was a mix-up, and as a result, people started saying it as "You can't have your cake and eat it, too".
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:17 pm
1. Yay! You're the only person aside from my mother to know that!
2. This is an issue that confuses me as well. I read an article about this woman who ended up pregnant with triplets. She was trying to get pregnant, but there was a mixup with her birth control or her fertility pills or something, and they ended up making her extremely fertile. She chose to abort two of the babies, because she didn't want triplets. She felt it was okay, because, in terms of genetics, she was pregnant with an individual and a set of twins.
She was somehow able to categorize the twins as non-human but the individual one as human. I don't understand how she could do that. How can any woman classify one fetus as an actual child and be willing to carry it to term, but not another one? What makes the difference?
That kind of view is something I will probably never understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:21 pm
Ava R. 1. Yay! You're the only person aside from my mother to know that!
2. This is an issue that confuses me as well. I read an article about this woman who ended up pregnant with triplets. She was trying to get pregnant, but there was a mixup with her birth control or her fertility pills or something, and they ended up making her extremely fertile. She chose to abort two of the babies, because she didn't want triplets. She felt it was okay, because, in terms of genetics, she was pregnant with an individual and a set of twins.
She was somehow able to categorize the twins as non-human but the individual one as human. I don't understand how she could do that. How can any woman classify one fetus as an actual child and be willing to carry it to term, but not another one? What makes the difference?
That kind of view is something I will probably never understand.
And I don't believe that what that mother did made sense, either. She just killed them like that, simply because she didn't want them. Ugh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:25 pm
To look at it from their point of view, it is emotional in the same sense as talking about, say, a hamburger as though it was once alive. Yes, it once was; But people usually don't like to think about that when they eat the burger, even though they don't think it's wrong. They don't like to think about it being a baby, because that has connotations that bother them, even though it is a true point. They also like to say that it is a fetus until it's born, at which point it becomes a child. Which is, of course, ridiculous; The definition of when it becomes a child is very indistinct for them, and they prefer it that way because it allows them to do whatever they want whenever they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:50 pm
Yeah, that makes sense, I guess. But still, it's very confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:40 pm
Because it's not a baby. It's a child, yes however it's not a baby. "Baby" is a term used to describe the age range which someone falls under. You wouldn't call a baby a teenager, you wouldn't call a teenager an adult. It's the samething as that, however like I said before "child" is a correct term. The term "child" applies to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:47 pm
Beware the Jabberwock Because it's not a baby. It's a child, yes however it's not a baby. "Baby" is a term used to describe the age range which someone falls under. You wouldn't call a baby a teenager, you wouldn't call a teenager an adult. It's the samething as that, however like I said before "child" is a correct term. The term "child" applies to everyone.
1 a : being in the first or an early stage of life, growth, or development b : JUNIOR 1a c : of an early, tender, or desirable age for use as food or drink
2 : having little experience
3 a : recently come into being : NEW b : YOUTHFUL 5
4 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of youth or a young person
5 capitalized : representing a new or rejuvenated especially political group or movement
So, I guess it is a baby. But who knows, maybe you're right. But still, they keep switching their emotions and feeling for the unborn around all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:56 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:17 pm
You guys are pretty much right on the money.
I would never call it a fetus, if I wanted to call it a baby.
Sometimes I do call it a fetus, but I like calling it "child" "baby" you know, whatever.
They REALLY get at you for the term "baby", though. Like, really. REALLY hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:01 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:07 pm
Mcphee You guys are pretty much right on the money.
I would never call it a fetus, if I wanted to call it a baby.
Sometimes I do call it a fetus, but I like calling it "child" "baby" you know, whatever.
They REALLY get at you for the term "baby", though. Like, really. REALLY hard.
Hmm, come to think of it, the only reason I went re-checking, is because I had a dream I was at Ask.com, and I typed in "Definition of baby", and it said, "Anything with legs, eyes, ears, etc., that can scream, kick and cry."
That was my inspiration to check if "baby" only meant born humans. Wow, where would I be without my dreams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:12 pm
Be careful with that one though. I've used it MANY times and they get into a snit almost every time, even the more reasonable ones.
I set the terms as compromising on child...which is offspring, not as sentimental as baby but still correct. If they don't want to agree with me on that (they're probably the same people who insist on using anti-choice but hate the term anti-life) then we won't get very far in a debate and I ask them what they will compromise on, or if I'm the one who has to make all the compromises. If they say that I'm the one who has to make all the compromises, they make themselves look kinda bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:13 pm
Oh, I love the reaction I get when I call it a baby or a child in a debate. It really startign gettign to them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:15 pm
lymelady Be careful with that one though. I've used it MANY times and they get into a snit almost every time, even the more reasonable ones. I set the terms as compromising on child...which is offspring, not as sentimental as baby but still correct. If they don't want to agree with me on that (they're probably the same people who insist on using anti-choice but hate the term anti-life) then we won't get very far in a debate and I ask them what they will compromise on, or if I'm the one who has to make all the compromises. If they say that I'm the one who has to make all the compromises, they make themselves look kinda bad.
And yes, me too. I love the feeling I get when I remember way back, the way Chelle* squealed "OMG those have been proven fake so many times!!!" when I'd shown them pictures of slaughtered babies. I am for once able to imagine them clawing at the sides of a hole with their fingernails digging into the dirt, trying to get out of the trap that they've pulled on me and many other Pro-Lifers again and again. Only, I smile, because I know that I am right, in a way that can be easily proven to them. I gain gratificational nutrience when they get defensive when you use the words "Baby", "Child", or "Innocent". I love it. It makes me lick my lips in a scary way, as if salty, wet blood is dribbling off of my teeth. It makes me want to say things to them that I've never been able to say before. I love how now that I've been around you guys, I've learned that they aren't always right just because they're strict, angry liberal feminazi activists. I love it. It makes me hungry. =)
*I don't think this was against the guild rules, or if it's considered a personal attack, but if it is, you can PM me and I'll edit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:18 pm
Lorysa I love how now that I've been around you guys, I've learned that they aren't always right just because they're strict, angry liberal femenazi activists. I love it. It makes me hungry. =) *I don't think this was against the guild rules, or if it's considered a personal attack, but if it is, you can PM me and I'll edit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
