re: Nebraska: Women overwhelmed with joy and in tears, after abortion ban bill fails

quote:

---

I use the term because it is the proper scientific terminology to reference a specific stage of development in utero, after the embryonic stage and before birth. It clearly and concisely distinguishes between a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, a newborn, an infant, a toddler, a prepubescent and an adolescent, while your ambiguous term can arguably be used in reference to ANY of those. When I mean blastocyst, I say “blastocyst.“ When I mean embryo, I say “embryo.“ Etcetera. It is a matter of precision.

---

This discussion doesn’t require such precision and therefore to use it is to attempt to muddy the waters (more like, to dehumanize a human child). I don’t care if the child is a newborn, a toddler, or an adolescent; for a mother to kill him or her would be considered immoral. The same applies to children in the womb, regardless of the developmental name you want to precisely use.

quote:

---

Yes, its use also de-emphasizes emotion in what is essentially a legal discussion.

---

The legality of it is secondary to the moral issue since law typically flows from morality, but even so, the truth of it is what is being argued ultimately. I’m not a law maker and I’m not here to pass laws. I’m here to discuss truth and persuade others of the truth. The dehumanizing of a child plays as much into the emotional side of the argument as calling a preborn baby a baby. I’m sure you’ve seen how emotionally unstable many pro-abortion supporters get when you call a preborn child a baby; I know I have seen it.

quote:

---

By contrast, your “side“ insists upon using the term “child,“ because you KNOW that it is ambiguous, and you WANT to drag emotion into the discussion. You WANT the reader to see your terminology and think about a laughing, cuddly infant rather than the 512-cell blastocyst that is actually under discussion. It is the same reason that you trot out diagrams of late-term, surgical abortions (which few of us support) rather than the early-term abortion by medication which constitutes 95% or more of abortions.

---

Emotion is used to persuade others. Both sides use it. That’s why the pro-abortion crowd calls us monsters for “forcing” a mother to not kill her child, or to “force” a young girl to go through the trauma of pregnancy and labor after being raped. Neither of those things speak to the logical or factual position about the ontology and value of the child, but are meant to persuade others that abortion is a moral good because only “monsters” would be against it.

Even so, I want to draw attention to the fact that what is in the womb is a living human being, which is precisely why he or she deserves protection of life. I don’t differentiate between zygote, embryo, or fetus because those distinctions absolutely do not matter to my position; all are preborn living children of their parents and are merely at differing stages of development, as we all are. I don’t differentiate between a toddler and an adult or an elderly adult to say one has more objective value than another and therefore we can kill one and not another.

quote:

---

To justify that sophistry, you always ask the question of what terminology would be used by a pregnant woman who WANTS to be pregnant. Oddly enough, you never ask the same question regarding the preferred terminology of a woman who does NOT wish to be pregnant.

---

My question was specifically tailored to someone who claimed that a child was an inappropriate term (bad faith) for a fetus, as if a child only applied after it was born, and I provided an example of a commonly used and understood phrase to show that “child” could legitimately be used of any developmental stage of pregnancy. It has nothing to do with whether or not the mother wanted to keep the baby or not. In fact, the phrase “with child” was used as a synonym for pregnancy by men as well as women, so whether or not the mother wanted the child was irrelevant to whether or not she was “with child” (pregnant).

quote:

---

it reminds me of the old saw that a lawyer whose case is not supported by the facts, should “pound on“ the law, and that a lawyer whose case is not supported the law should “pound on” the facts. Lacking either, he should “pound on the table.“. By resorting to emotion in this argument, you are simply pounding upon the table.

---

You're acting as if this is a binary scenario of those with facts and those with emotion. It isn’t.

quote:

---

Man hits pregnant woman and kills the baby. Whats the charge?

---

Depends on the state right now.

If I had my way, I think it should be at least a manslaughter charge. It should also depend on if the hit was intended to kill the baby. That should be murder.

quote:

---

You're acting as if this is a binary scenario

quote:

---

I’m not sure he’s capable of anything else.

---

---

Rich, coming from the “side“ of this discussion which refuses to acknowledge that something like “consciousness“ or “sapience“ develops overtime, rather than having a binary toggle switch, turning it on or off.

And which does a little “victory dance“ when a more-thoughtful person acknowledges that no such bright line exists.

quote:

---

Rich, coming from the “side“ of this discussion which refuses to acknowledge that something like “consciousness“ or “sapience“ develops overtime, rather than having a binary toggle switch, turning it on or off.

---

I have said nothing of the sort, so stop making false claims.

quote:

---

No one uses “sapience” the way you continually do. You might be confusing it with “sentience.”

---

I assure you that I am not. Sapience is a higher standard than sentience. Monkeys and puppies are sentient, but not sapient.

Three generations of science-fiction writers have misused the term “sentient” to the extent that most of the population gets it wrong.

quote:

---

No one uses “sapience” the way you continually do.

---

Obfuscation. When one doesn't have values, one fabricates their own world.

quote:

---

the validity of my position.

---

Your "validity" is highly subjective.

Anyone can create a fairy existence where dysfunction appears normal.

quote:

---

What do you think the rest of us are doing when we use the word child or baby? quote: My sister is seven months pregnant with a healthy child quote The baby hasn’t arrived yet, but the nursery is ready.

---

No, you disengenuous jackass. Neither of those uses is relevent to this discussion.

In the discussion about abortion, your side purposely started using the expressions "killing babies" and even "aborting babies after they are born" (how impossibly ignorant is that one?).

In response, those on the other side started using the terms embryo and fetus to more accurately describe the stages of development along the path to viability, as discussed in Roe v. Wade.

You fanatics claim that personhood begins at conception, by quoting an irrelevant Bible verse, and then staunchly refuse to entertain any circumstance as an exception.

But now the real objective is being revealed as zealots are now pushing to ban contraceptives.

All of this started as a simple subtrafuse by Republicans to recruit new members to their political party, but has since morphed into a unyielding religious fanaticism.

Super hurt by this post from this alter of yours. Long into a different one, bitch. I’ll tell you the same thing.