[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Antityranicals]

Look it up. I literally just Googled it.

You missed parts of the definition.

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
a son or daughter of any age.
an immature or irresponsible person.
"she's such a child!"
a person who has little or no experience in a particular area.
"he's a child in financial matters"
the descendants of a family or people.
"the children of Abraham"
a person or thing influenced by a specified environment.
"a child of the Sixties"

Same with baby, it has more definitions.

That's the stupidest argument I've heard it a good bit... That's like saying about a wooden tool used in the game of baseball: "That's not a bat, because a bat is a flying mammal!" Sure, there are other uses of the word "child" and the word "baby," but that doesn't make the first definition, and the only one which really applies here, wrong.

[Asle Leopolka]

A fetus isn't a baby.

A baby is defined as a very young child, while a child is defined as a young human below the age of puberty. A fetus is a very young young human below the age of puberty. Thus, it is a baby.

And a fetus is not a baby until it meets the definition of life and is born.

Except they aren't really humans. They aren't even really an independent entity.

Biologically, they are. They are not part of the mother, their genetic code is completely different, and from the moment of conception, there is a new human, at least if you trust science. I'll edit this to add some sources in a minute...

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientifi ... fe-begins/

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-spea ... ife-begins

https://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/wh ... al-answer/

Citing a bunch of pro-life organizations is biased as all hell. Dig into the actual scientific literature instead.

[The New California Republic]

You missed parts of the definition.

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
a son or daughter of any age.
an immature or irresponsible person.
"she's such a child!"
a person who has little or no experience in a particular area.
"he's a child in financial matters"
the descendants of a family or people.
"the children of Abraham"
a person or thing influenced by a specified environment.
"a child of the Sixties"

Same with baby, it has more definitions.

That's the stupidest argument I've heard it a good bit... That's like saying about a wooden tool used in the game of baseball: "That's not a bat, because a bat is a flying mammal!" Sure, there are other uses of the word "child" and the word "baby," but that doesn't make the first definition, and the only one which really applies here, wrong.

This makes you wrong though.

[Antityranicals]

Fetuses do have rights, they are humans, and humans have rights.

This argument does not hold, as it was pointed out to you that rights apply to persons who have been born, not humans as such.

---

A baby is defined as a very young child, while a child is defined as a young human below the age of puberty. A fetus is a very young young human below the age of puberty. Thus, it is a baby.

Wrong.

child
noun [ C ]
UK /tʃaɪld/ US /tʃaɪld/
plural children UK/ˈtʃɪl.drən/ US/ˈtʃɪl.drən/

a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult.

baby
noun [ C ]
UK /ˈbeɪ.bi/ US /ˈbeɪ.bi/

a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk.

A fetus is neither a child, nor is it a baby.

I'm sure you can find a dictionary to tailor-make definitions for you, but I'm working off of the Oxford English Dictionary, the most respected dictionary in the world. Here's a source:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/baby

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/child

And you can read the definitions there.

[Antityranicals]

A baby is defined as a very young child, while a child is defined as a young human below the age of puberty. A fetus is a very young young human below the age of puberty. Thus, it is a baby.

And a fetus is not a baby until it meets the definition of life and is born.

Biologically, they are. They are not part of the mother, their genetic code is completely different, and from the moment of conception, there is a new human, at least if you trust science. I'll edit this to add some sources in a minute...

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientifi ... fe-begins/

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-spea ... ife-begins

https://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/wh ... al-answer/

Citing a bunch of pro-life organizations is biased as all hell. Dig into the actual scientific literature instead.

1. That's not what the dictionary says...
2. Only two of those are pro-life organizations. Two and three are definitely not.

[The New California Republic]

I'm sure you can find a dictionary to tailor-make definitions for you, but I'm working off of the Oxford English Dictionary, the most respected dictionary in the world. Here's a source:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/baby

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/child

And you can read the definitions there.

They don't support your claim that the fetus is a baby and a child. The Cambridge definitions I used do however categorically refute your claim.

[Antityranicals]

I'm sure you can find a dictionary to tailor-make definitions for you, but I'm working off of the Oxford English Dictionary, the most respected dictionary in the world. Here's a source:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/baby

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/child

And you can read the definitions there.

They don't support your claim that the fetus is a baby and a child. The Cambridge definitions I used do however categorically refute your claim.

Definitions don't refute anything. And as I explained above, these definitions mean that any very young human who has yet to reach puberty is a baby. You're engaging in semantics because you can't touch the science!

[West Leas Oros 2]

They don't support your claim that the fetus is a baby and a child. The Cambridge definitions I used do however categorically refute your claim.

Definitions don't refute anything. You're engaging in semantics because you can't touch the science!

You're one to talk.

[The New California Republic]

They don't support your claim that the fetus is a baby and a child. The Cambridge definitions I used do however categorically refute your claim.

Definitions don't refute anything.

The definitions actually do refute the manner in which you are shitting all over the meanings of words.

You're engaging in semantics because you can't touch the science!

What science have you given? I can't touch something that isn't there in the first place.

[Antityranicals]

Definitions don't refute anything. You're engaging in semantics because you can't touch the science!

You're one to talk.

Do you want to talk science, or do you want to continue this wordplay game. Try reading the sources.

[Antityranicals]

Definitions don't refute anything.

The definitions actually do refute the manner in which you are shitting all over the meanings of words.

You're engaging in semantics because you can't touch the science!

What science have you given? I can;t touch something that isn't there in the first place.

Read the sources above.

[The New California Republic]

Read the sources above.

Don't engage in pathetic linkdumping. Actually give us a cogent argument instead.

[Asle Leopolka]

And a fetus is not a baby until it meets the definition of life and is born.


Citing a bunch of pro-life organizations is biased as all hell. Dig into the actual scientific literature instead.

1. That's not what the dictionary says...
2. Only two of those are pro-life. Two and three are definitely not.

The American College of Pediatrics is not the professional organization of pediatricians - that's the American Academy of Pediatrics. ACoP is a social organization, not a professional one, and they advocate for conversion therapy, are vehemothly anti-LGBTQ, and are vocally against abortions.
That Princeton article is just a bunch of quotes taken out of context by someone who obviously has an agenda.

Again, read the actual scientific literature.

[Estanglia]

The response has been "it's not the same because I have rights and the fetus doesn't". You haven't followed up with anyone who made that iirc except for NCR, who pointed out as a counter we consider fetuses human but not people, and rights are based on personhood not humanity.

Beyond that, you haven't asked for any further clarifications as far as I've seen.

Fetuses do have rights, they are humans, and humans have rights.

And we don't believe that non-person humans have rights, and the fetus is a non-person human.

The question is simply how these rights relate to the woman's right to bodily sovereignty.

Or whether or not the fetus actually has rights.

Fyi, several of us here don't believe it does.

I've countered it by noting that aggression is required in order for lethal force to be justified (Justified, not right, killing is never right).

It isn't, both legally and by my moral system.

Y'all seem to think that a sleepwalker should be killed if he seems like he's going to attack, which is a far, far too low bar for homicide, and the bar of the situation of a fetus is even lower.

If the sleepwalker is threatening my rights, I have the right to stop them, using lethal force if necessary.

[West Leas Oros 2]

You're one to talk.

Do you want to talk science, or do you want to continue this wordplay game. Try reading the sources.

Your sources have already been discredited multiple times in this thread. Besides, fetuses aren't sentient from conception.

[The New California Republic]

these definitions mean that any very young human who has yet to reach puberty is a baby.

But that doesn't mean that a fetus fits into the definition of baby or child.

And "any very young human who has yet to reach puberty is a baby"? So a 6 year old child is a baby? Methinks you are getting terribly confused about all this.

Do you want to talk science, or do you want to continue this wordplay game.

Until you start using words properly in relation to what they actually mean, then the wordplay will continue.

[Antityranicals]

Do you want to talk science, or do you want to continue this wordplay game. Try reading the sources.

Your sources have already been discredited multiple times in this thread. Besides, fetuses aren't sentient from conception.

Sentience is completely irrelevant to rights.

[Genivaria]

And no pro-lifer has yet been able to explain why a fetus has a right to their mother's body when a person who desperately needs an organ DOESN'T have the right to force anyone to give them an organ.

A fetus doesn't necessarily have a right to their mother's body, but he or she does necessarily have a right to life. So if you can remove the fetus from the mother without killing it , than the mother has the right to have that done. Otherwise, you, and not the child, are the rights-violator. The most common way of doing that is called "birth." If killing humans of any size were made a crime, the healthcare industry would have significant incentives to find other ways, and I'm sure they could. But for now, their default response is tragically: "Kill the baby!!!" And that needs to stop.

No you don't get to have it both ways, either the fetus is entitled to the mother's body or it is not.
If it is not then removing it from the her body is entirely the mother's choice, period.

[Antityranicals]

these definitions mean that any very young human who has yet to reach puberty is a baby.

But that doesn't mean that a fetus fits into the definition of baby or child.

And "any very young human who has yet to reach puberty is a baby"? So a 6 year old child is a baby? Methinks you are getting terribly confused about all this.

Do you want to talk science, or do you want to continue this wordplay game.

Until you start using words properly in relation to what they actually mean, then the wordplay will continue.

That's what the term "very" is for...

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Your sources have already been discredited multiple times in this thread. Besides, fetuses aren't sentient from conception.

Sentience is completely irrelevant to rights.

Does my skin stemcells then have human rights?

[The New California Republic]

But that doesn't mean that a fetus fits into the definition of baby or child.

And "any very young human who has yet to reach puberty is a baby"? So a 6 year old child is a baby? Methinks you are getting terribly confused about all this.

That's what the term "very" is for...

A 6 year old is "very young", so don't try to pull that shit friendo.

[Genivaria]

Your sources have already been discredited multiple times in this thread. Besides, fetuses aren't sentient from conception.

Sentience is completely irrelevant to rights.

PETA will be ecstatic.

[Antityranicals]

A fetus doesn't necessarily have a right to their mother's body, but he or she does necessarily have a right to life. So if you can remove the fetus from the mother without killing it , than the mother has the right to have that done. Otherwise, you, and not the child, are the rights-violator. The most common way of doing that is called "birth." If killing humans of any size were made a crime, the healthcare industry would have significant incentives to find other ways, and I'm sure they could. But for now, their default response is tragically: "Kill the baby!!!" And that needs to stop.

No you don't get to have it both ways, either the fetus is entitled to the mother's body or it is not.
If it is not then removing it from the her body is entirely the mother's choice, period.

Removing it without manslaughter is entirely the mother's choice. Medical science is far more advanced than people who think that fetuses are tumors can imagine.

[Estanglia]

Your sources have already been discredited multiple times in this thread. Besides, fetuses aren't sentient from conception.

Sentience is completely irrelevant to rights.

In your conception of rights, maybe.

To us? No.

[Antityranicals]

Sentience is completely irrelevant to rights.

PETA will be ecstatic.

It has everything to do with whether or not an organism is an individual member of "homo sapiens." It's that simple.