|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:42 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle Perhaps you should follow your own advice. He presented a source and claimed it defended him. I showed that it didn't. How am I not following my own advice? I've already explained that every definition of an unborn anything as a child is merely a colloquial definition, not a literal one. I didn't pull up a website to prove it. I, also, have been having difficulties accepting dictionary.com as a credible source for definitions in general.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:45 pm
Whys that? Because it dosn't agree with you? It draws all its definitions form reliable sources. You look in any modern unabridged edition of a dictionary and your goign to get the same definitions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:46 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle Whys that? Because it dosn't agree with you? It draws all its definitions form reliable sources. You look in any modern unabridged edition of a dictionary and your goign to get the same definitions It will take me a little bit to explain my position. I'll have to use an analogy, it's coming up in a bit. A while back, I was in a creationist debate and we went totally off topic. A bunch of people were trying to explain why humans are not animals. I believe humans are animals. Others did. However, the opposing arguement was the dictionary definition. Quote: an·i·mal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ml) n. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal. A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner. A human considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature. A person having a specified aptitude or set of interests: “that rarest of musical animals, an instrumentalist who is as comfortable on a podium with a stick as he is playing his instrument” (Lon Tuck). And I had to explain~The definition that you have bolded is a colloquial definition, not a literal one. We all literally had to back them into a corner until they said "Yeah, humans are warm blooded mammals, and warm blooded mammals are animals, but not all humans are animals". It was frustrating. For the record, the definition of colloquial. Quote: col·lo·qui·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkw-l) adj. Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal. Relating to conversation; conversational. Informal. Slang. Not the intended definition. It took literally an hour to explain that, according to the scientific classification of all living things in existance, humans fall under the catergory of multi-cellular organisms that don't use photosynthesis, aka animals. And then, they finally got it. You, in general, are doing the exact same thing with the term "child" and it's definition of "an unborn child/fetus" as a definition of classification. That is simply not the case. The stages of human life are clearly outlined in wikipedia. A fetus is not a child. Once again, I'd like to state that this does not argue for or against abortion. For the record~I've been wary of accepting it as a credible source since it terms a fetus perfectly as a parasite. That's what started it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:50 pm
I don't like dictionary.com either, really.
Are you by any chance Eshmasesh? If so, why are you using your mule to post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:54 pm
lymelady I don't like dictionary.com either, really. Are you by any chance Eshmasesh? If so, why are you using your mule to post? I felt it would be rude to have a pro-choice signature in a pro-life guild, and I wanted to have a clean slate. In all honesty...I thought I'd be rejected for it, and I wanted to get in so I could listen to the other side (with as little bias against me I should add).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:56 pm
By medical standards. No, its not. By definition how ever it is. By medical standards you would not treat a fetus the same way you treat a child, nor would you treat and infant the same way as a child, nor a toddler. Most medical dictionries label the child as being between the ages of 5 and 12. Toddlers between the ages of 2 and 4 and infants birth to 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:01 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle By medical standards. No, its not. By definition how ever it is. By medical standards you would not treat a fetus the same way you treat a child, nor would you treat and infant the same way as a child, nor a toddler. Most medical dictionries label the child as being between the ages of 5 and 12. Toddlers between the ages of 2 and 4 and infants birth to 2. It has nothing to do with treatment. I'm not trying to introduce any bias whatsoever by dehumanizing a fetus. The fact is that, according to the classifications of human growth, a fetus is not a child since it is unborn; the classifications are the non-biased, objective definitions. The definitions you are basing your approach on are all slang. I really don't know how to explain it any simpler than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:03 pm
I get what your saying. I understand what you mean. But you have to understand that other choicers would twist the informationt o be in their favor. When you have already proving its not in any ones favor. Like lyme said, we use the literal definition when ever some one tries to come along and say the fetus is not a child in any way at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:04 pm
Well, thank you for the consideration. If you'd rather come in as your regular account, you won't be rejected.
We've had (and still do have) pro-choice members. As long as they respect us, most people in here will accept them. One of our current mods was actually in here when he was pro-choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:06 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle I get what your saying. I understand what you mean. But you have to understand that other choicers would twist the informationt o be in their favor. When you have already proving its not. I know they would. Propoganda is something I don't like. But I term calling a fetus a child as propoganda as well, since it makes people think of a cute little two year old instead of a fetus. They are nothing more than classifications, they shouldn't be used in either way to make people feel emotionally obligated to the position. lymelady Well, thank you for the consideration. If you'd rather come in as your regular account, you won't be rejected. We've had (and still do have) pro-choice members. As long as they respect us, most people in here will accept them. One of our current mods was actually in here when he was pro-choice. I never get to use this account though, so I'm not sure. 3nodding Maybe later, but I feel comfortable on this one for now. I've argued way too much tonight...I'm off. I need to get up early for work tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:55 am
Quote: But I term calling a fetus a child as propoganda as well, since it makes people think of a cute little two year old instead of a fetus. And connotations are bad?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:45 am
The problem with Wikipedia, and why I -wasn't- using it as my main source but rather just pointing out my amusement at their definition, is that it changes from day to day.
When I read it, it included child.
Also, ordinary dictionaries may include colloqialisms, but the one I actually used as my source was a medical dictionary, which, I would think, wouldn't have that problem.
Last, I think that calling it a fetus, and insisting that it be called a fetus, is also propoganda; You are trying to insist it -isn't- a cute, small, human being. Child has connotations of value, and humanity. Fetus is medical, cold, and inhuman sounding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
kp606 Quote: But I term calling a fetus a child as propoganda as well, since it makes people think of a cute little two year old instead of a fetus. And connotations are bad? Yes. Connotation in this scenario equals propoganda. To me, propoganda is bad. I'm sure that a lot of fascists absolutely love propoganda though. A fetus isn't a child, a fetus is a fetus. Classifications and labels exist for a reason. I.Am The problem with Wikipedia, and why I -wasn't- using it as my main source but rather just pointing out my amusement at their definition, is that it changes from day to day. When I read it, it included child. Also, ordinary dictionaries may include colloqialisms, but the one I actually used as my source was a medical dictionary, which, I would think, wouldn't have that problem. Last, I think that calling it a fetus, and insisting that it be called a fetus, is also propoganda; You are trying to insist it -isn't- a cute, small, human being. Child has connotations of value, and humanity. Fetus is medical, cold, and inhuman sounding. I've already addressed that point, and stated that it shouldn't be used as propoganda either way. I am trying to approach this from an absolutely nuetral standpoint. Calling a fetus a fetus may sound inhuman to you, but that's purely your perspective; maybe to me calling an old person an elder sounds inhuman. But ofcourse, that would make no sense to you; it's nothing more than a term to represent a stage in developement. I think the reason it "changes day to day" is because of people vandalising the page. I've been reading up the history. The last time the developement part of the page was edited was march, in order for it to make more sense. That is the relative part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:59 pm
o.O There's nothing wrong with propoganda. Everyone does it. When the Pro-Choice side says, "Keep your morals off my body!" That's propoganda. When the Pro-Life side says, "Abortion stops a beating heart." That's propoganda.
But there's nothing wrong with either one, as long as they aren't using falsities or misinformation.
As I said, the medical dictionary I used called the fetus a child. When a doctor speaks to a pregnant woman, they don't say, "Your fetus is so many months along," they say, "Your baby is so many months along."
And you must be joking if you're saying that you really think "fetus" sounds human, and anything but cold and medical. The only time the term "fetus" is used is in studies and the abortion debate. Or possibly by Pro-Choicers who don't want to think about a child being aborted.
I try to accomodate for Pro-Choicers by calling it a fetus, but that doesn't keep it from being a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:32 pm
I.Am o.O There's nothing wrong with propoganda. Everyone does it. When the Pro-Choice side says, "Keep your morals off my body!" That's propoganda. When the Pro-Life side says, "Abortion stops a beating heart." That's propoganda. But there's nothing wrong with either one, as long as they aren't using falsities or misinformation. When I personally think of propaganda, I think of false and misleading advertisement. Not just plain advertisement. Excuse me if my connotation is confusing you that way, but that's always been what I refer to with the word. Quote: As I said, the medical dictionary I used called the fetus a child. When a doctor speaks to a pregnant woman, they don't say, "Your fetus is so many months along," they say, "Your baby is so many months along." When a doctor speaks to a pregnant woman. Spoken. Slang. Colloqualism. "The medical dictionary I used" doesn't really cut it for me. I need something both credible and visible which actually says "A fetus is, according to medical and biological classifications, a child". I mean, I already provided my side of the arguement with a visible source. I can look for more if you'd like. Quote: And you must be joking if you're saying that you really think "fetus" sounds human, and anything but cold and medical. That's...not what I said. Did my point completely go over your head? Quote: The only time the term "fetus" is used is in studies and the abortion debate. Or possibly by Pro-Choicers who don't want to think about a child being aborted. *sigh* Apparently nothing I've said has gotten to you, so nevermind. Quote: I try to accomodate for Pro-Choicers by calling it a fetus, but that doesn't keep it from being a child. Same as above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
