by adamah 285 Replies latest social current
Okay, here we go again, mostly for BOTR:
From this NIH website: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Fetal development
Email this page to a friend Bookmark & Share Printer-friendly versionThis article discusses how a human baby is conceived and how the baby develops inside the mother's womb.
This is NOT a religious country. Women, such as FHN, have no right to impose their beliefs on other women. Mind your own business.
In case you didn't read either of my last posts, BOTR, I AM PRO-CHOICE. Understand? And keep arguing that a fetus is not a baby. The US NIH does not agree with you. Look at the post above. I have NOT said in this thread that I oppose choice and I have stated that I do not know what I would do in the position of this father and the rest of the family. Please, calm down.
FHN said- And keep arguing that a fetus is not a baby. The US NIH does not agree with you.
I suspect you're unconsciously inserting concepts into their words, colored by what you WANT it to say....
So remembering that the definition used within medicine is that a baby (AKA infant) is the life stage that starts upon birth (and last from 0-1 yrs old), let's look at what the NIH said.
NIH says: This article discusses how a human baby is conceived and how the baby develops inside the mother's womb.
The NIH could've used the word 'toddler' (1-3 yrs old), and it would just as true:
NIH says: This article discusses how a human toddler is conceived and how the toddler develops inside the mother's womb.
The NIH could've used the word, 'adult', but now we're getting further away from the fetus life stage so it's pushing it:
NIH says: This article discusses how a human adult is conceived and how the adult develops inside the mother's womb.
But what about using the proper term, 'fetus'?
NIH says: This article discusses how a human fetus is conceived and how the fetus develops inside the mother's womb.
That's more accurate and truthful, but it doesn't have the emotional power of using the word 'baby' (since we've ALL seen and even held babies, but few of us have any real-life first-hand experience with a fetus, since most people aren't doctors who performs abortions).
Point being, the NIH used the life stage just immediately AFTER the fetus, which is ambiguous enough to allow the reader to do the time-shifting on their own, mistakenly assuming the NIH is calling the fetus a baby when they're not, but only allowing the reader to 'fill in the blanks' to create a desired interpretation.
Ironically, that seems to be what happened in the Munoz case, where the hospital decided to read intent into a law which wasn't there.
Adam
Adam I usually always agree with you. :) But, it seems like you are just asserting what the NIH meant in your last post. I would think this is shaky ground to be on, since FHN could likewise just assert what she thinks they meant. Just pointing out the obvious.
Lisa Rose said-
Munoz described in a signed affidavit filed Thursday what it was like to see her now: her glassy, "soulless" eyes; and the smell of her perfume replaced by what he knows to be the smell of death. He said he's tried to hold her hand but can't "Her limbs have become so stiff and rigid due to her deteriorating condition that now, when I move her hands, her bones crack, and her legs are nothing more than dead weight," Munoz said.
I posted a link to the full affadavit Erick submitted on Thursday, and it's worth reading it all....
Putting ourselves into his shoes, it's not hard to imagine what it would be like for Erick to be caught in a catch-22, facing criticism if he didn't visit the body (accused as being the heartless bastard who wanted to kill the child so he could be free), or having to see his dead live's body in a slow state of decay.
We bury bodies for a GOOD reason: it allows the living not to be forced to watch the bodies of our loved ones decompose in front of our eyes, on a day-by-day basis, covering up the process that occurs after we die by placing a wall of separation between the living and the dead.
The irony is that the State was forcing him in the position of having to watch the decompositional process of death in the name of protecting life.
Comatose said-
Adam I usually always agree with you. :) But, it seems like you are just asserting what the NIH meant in your last post. I would think this is shaky ground to be on, since FHN could likewise just assert what she thinks they meant. Just pointing out the obvious.
Like I said, there's NO doubt that the medical community has a very-specific meaning for words like 'fetus', 'zygote', 'baby', etc which are more-clearly restrained than the layperson's use of the words. The NIH headed by doctors, but they obviously are going to tow a fine-line to not cross any lines and serve as a taxpayer-funded public interest group, communicating with the public.
And much like the WTBTS, gov't agencies often rely on 'weasel words', as a way to allow the public to read whatever interpretation they want into their words, thus keeping everyone happy.
Besides, pointing out the ambiguous use of words is not me picking one over the other: I'm only pointing to their ambiguous use of language which allows both sides to think they understand the author's intent, when they really don't (but are relying on the power of assumption).
Adam
Adam, whats the source of your chart? When I get back to my pc, Ill post the entire article.from.the.NIH. All your chart shows is stages of development. No.one is disputing the use of the.term.fetus.to.label.a baby in utero. Arent all mammals called fetuses while in utero post embryonic state? What BOTR.asserts is that a fetus is not ababy. Ive showed.very clearly that even the NIH uses the terms fetus and baby to.describe the human unborn child.
Im looking at your chart again, Adam. Let me point out that the picture representing the word foetus is of an embryo.
FHN,
Your question as to whether I had children was repugnant. It had nothing to do with the topic. I don't know what games you play. This is not the first thread where you appear and make loopy statements. My solution is to ignore you.
My primary objection to the forces that deny women choice, const'l choice, is religous. I learned as a small girl how little women were valued by the WT. No one, no one will take my place regarding my own autonomy. This Texas case was absolutely ghoulish. I feel the hospital's lawyers should be investigated. This entire thread was not impressive. In a few months, some investigative journalist will write a long piece for magazines such as the New York Times, New Yorker, or Vanity Fair about the story behind the story.
The husband's statement to the court about his wife, reeking of death, and her brittle bones, reveals a horror story. No one without access to his wife can imagine just how ghoulish it was. The abortion wars must simmer down a bit. There was no patient. Corpses are not patients.
How does anyone here know they will not be the next victim of such a hospital? We don't. This was never about medicine. I also wonder if TX is demonic. Certain states have wacky reputations.
I mentioned the 20+ abortion crowd. The right to death case, Karen Ann Quinlan, happened in my state. Most people don't realize it but when she was taken off life support, contrary to all expectation, she lived many years in a nursing home. Most people would not call it life. This is an Internet forum.
Also, frankly, I don't care about your reproductive life. It impacts nothing beyond your own life. Society is not going to listen to you b/c you gave birth. Rats give birth. I am fed up with this whole Madonna argument.
I ask because most women who've been pregnant, who wanted to be, understand that they were or are, if currently pregnant, carrying babies. Im trying to figure out your staunch stand that a fetus is not a baby.
BOTR, try reading posts. You clearly arent.
