How about Anti-Choicers simply use correct scientific factual terms like calling a fetus a fetus and a child a child and a teenager a teenager, an adult an adult and not making up terms to suit their agenda. I agree it's too complicated for Anti-Choicers but all they have to do is use the correct, scientific, factual terms and things will be clear and I won't have to correct them every time they're wrong
How about calling it a pre-born baby? The word "fetus" to me seems to typically convey the image of a much earlier stage of gestation, before about 16 weeks. Maybe from 16 weeks to 20 weeks I might call it a "premature developing baby", to signify it is somewhere in the twilight zone of becoming a baby, between being a potential future baby and being a baby, but obviously not developed enough yet to really be considered fully a baby. I am okay calling it a fetus before 16 weeks, if you want, but 16 weeks is my uppermost limit, and I personally feel uncomfortable referring to it as "a fetus" after 16 weeks. It might be technically accurate, but it does not feel accurate or give a very honest impression. "child" is not really a scientific terminology.
How about calling it what it is, a fetus.....that's honest and correct....got objections to "honest and correct" ?? Well, too bad you are NOT the person who decide what science is. OOOHHH, "twilight zone...is that your scientific term from your favorite sci-fi TV show? LOLOLOLOLOL MORE FUNNIES...."accurate" is not giving a very honest impression????? HILARIOUS....righties don't need no dam "accuracy"....no wonder you shy away from facts...
Since the terminology is taken from the federal law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, you are clearly mistaken. It is widely known and accepted terminology!
Honestly and correctly an infant, a toddler, and a fetus are merely descriptions of different stages of a baby's life. Sad that you think you are! This childishness is very telling.
No, they're stages of human life. Why can't you use the word "fetus" to describe a fetus??? I never said I was.... Yes, people who use sci-fi and TV shows really have nothing....and it is quite childish
FoxHastings said: ↑ , A fetus isn't a "person"....doesn't have rights. A 7 month old fetus doesn't have rights. It does have protections NOW, do show your proof that mentally stable women wish to abort at 7 months...
A 12 year old child doesn't have full rights either. The "protections" you mention are rights. Educate yourself.
This is an outrageous comment. You do NOT get to make absolutist healthcare requirements. ALL such decisions have to consider a range of factors concerning the health of the woman (including both mental and physical health( and the health of the fetus.
As noted, offspring covers the entire range. The use of "baby", "child", and even "infant" when talking about the pre-born is an emotional weapon strike, whether intended or not. Even when it comes to things like whether or not we should allow a person to be taken off life support, or allow a person to end their life and receive asked for assistance, we have to try to keep the emotional components out of it. If we can't logically determine whether these should or shouldn't be allowed, and more importantly why, without emotional component, then we risk making wrong decisions. I will agree that most people, regardless of the side, places value upon the life of the offspring at all stages. I would go so far as to guess that most pro choice people would not be about allowing the termination of the offspring if it was in an artificial womb instead of the mother's womb. At that point, the woman's bodily autonomy is no longer a part of the equation. However, with that said, and AW technology nowhere near ready, the already born woman is the bird in the hand, while the offspring is the bird in the bush. The woman is already here and contributing, whereas the offspring is only ever a possibility prior to birth.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy. Legal language doesn't always match that of common usage. For example, incest is blood related people engaged in the act of sexual copulation, regardless of marriage or procreations. Legally speaking, and the law does vary greatly between various states and countries, incest can include non-blood related, but legally related persons (such as a step parent/child, even if both are adults when the relationship is established) engaging in the act of sexual copulation, or of legal marriage, between blood or legally related person even if sexual copulations never takes place.
The fetus still doesn't have any rights, regardless of what the mother wants. However in her desire to keep and gestate the offspring, any termination or damage to the offspring by a third party is a violation of the woman's rights. The law is clear, since you want to bring it up, that rights belong to born persons.
If a 12 year old, or even a 40 year old, was taking from the bodily resources of another person, then that other person would have the right to end the use of their bodily resources by the 12 year old or the 40 year old, even if such termination of bodily resources would result in the death of the 12 year old or the 40 year old. Age is irrelevant. The right of bodily autonomy applies regardless of the age of the outside party. Thus even if an unborn had rights, they still would not override the bodily autonomy rights of the person the offspring is in.
FoxHastings said: ↑ , A fetus isn't a "person"....doesn't have rights. A 7 month old fetus doesn't have rights. It does have protections NOW, do show your proof that mentally stable women wish to abort at 7 months... A 12 year old has the right not to be killed. The protections under the UVVA are protections, it does not and cannot give rights. The need to educate yourself is all on you...
Extremely flawed analogy. In the case of 99.999% of abortions, a child in utero is slaughtered after committing no wrongful act against anyone. Just because the host woman decides to commit a homicide against him/her.
I have schooled you on this 100 times. There are no laws anywhere that grant rights! The laws merely recognize them. The UVVA recognizes the rights of children in utero. Try to keep up.
You obviously have not read the UVVA. It clearly recognizes the rights of a child in utero not to be victimized by violent crime, including homicide.
You are incorrect again, quite obviously! You stated that the terminology "Child in Utero" doesn't exist. I proved you 100% wrong by showing you it is actually used in a Federal Law! It is obviously accepted and frequently used terminology. Next!
FoxHastings said: ↑ , A fetus isn't a "person"....doesn't have rights. A 7 month old fetus doesn't have rights. It does have protections NOW, do show your proof that mentally stable women wish to abort at 7 months... A 12 year old has the right not to be killed. The protections under the UVVA are protections, it does not and cannot give rights. The need to educate yourself is all on you... LOL, in your mind only… No, it doesn't....or you could show the part of the act that does You use that trite silly phrase quite a lot....guess with having nothing else to say it helps fill out your posts... WHY do you think fetuses should have more rights than born persons??
And when it is born it is a pre-dead person and thus still have no rights. You should abstract your terminology from the concretes of reality or, in other words, draw the map according to the terrain and not the otjer way around. Of vourse, this is very hard for the religious to do since their entire worldview is based on the evasion of reality. Words are just noises we use to describe the actual, so even if you would choose to call it a "gaa-gaa-goo-goo", it would still be what it is. A fetus is not a baby. They are perceptually different which is why we have the two different concepts. So, the Conservative is scared of words, huh? I thought that was a dUMb SnOWfLaKe LiBeRaL thing. Correct. It is a legal term. However, it is a proper concept and thus integrated to everything else, even science.
There is no analogy. It's straight facts. Bodily autonomy rights trumps other rights. If you don't believe in bodily autonomy rights, then we can make you get a vasectomy against your will, or have blood taken to give to another, or even organs or bone marrow, again against your will, just based upon right of life. Then you should be able to cite the specific words which bestows upon an unborn any actual rights, in addition to any wording that causes those supposed right to override bodily autonomy rights. Strawman. That is not what I claimed. I said that a legal definition is not automatically the same as common usage, which is why they include legal definitions in law. I never claimed that that phrase did not exist in that law. Claim that just because it exists as a legal definition it is the same as common usage is still an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Using the same fallacy again, does not make the fallacy go away. Next!
Actually "child" is a scientific term, as it is defined in several sciences, included sociology, biology and medicine. The legal term "child" may or may not match those scientific definitions.
Educate Yourself : The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism. Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2] The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child." """" NOTICE, it warned of a "STEP TOWARD" granting legal personhood...BUT IT DOESN'T and DIDN'T grant legal personhood...
