Abortion is obviously murder.

[morningstar2651]

Abortion is killing a young genetically unique person by use of a coat hanger or other such sophisticated object. That person would have otherwise grown into larger person who would have been born, maybe married, may be had chilldren, maybe had grand children but would have been aborted before having children. Such is death or life.

What do you propose we do to reduce the number of abortions?

 

[Paulos23]

What do you propose we do to reduce the number of abortions?

I would love to know autumnleafs ideas on this. I have my own, but I would love to know what he thinks. And if they would be 100% effective.

 

[jayem]

Various abortion scenarios:

1) Terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

2) Aborting at 12 weeks, so the mother can undergo radiation and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed Hodgkin's Disease.

3) Selectively terminating a quintuple pregnancy down to twins to improve the odds of successful delivery.

4) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by a serial rapist.

5) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by her father.

6) Aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrome.

7) Terminating after an unintended pregnancy occurs because a condom broke.

All of these involve killing a fetus. I'm curious as to what people think. Are some permissable and some not? What makes the difference?

 

[Khameo]

Various abortion scenarios:

1) Terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

2) Aborting at 12 weeks, so the mother can undergo radiation and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed Hodgkin's Disease.

3) Selectively terminating a quintuple pregnancy down to twins to improve the odds of successful delivery.

4) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by a serial rapist.

5) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by her father.

6) Aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrome.

7) Terminating after an unintended pregnancy occurs because a condom broke.

All of these involve killing a fetus. I'm curious as to what people think. Are some permissable and some not? What makes the difference?

The difference is that certain Christians want their petty spiritual-gratification to seem justified.

It's easy for them to complain about someone getting an abortion because a condom broke. It's not so easy for them to complain about someone getting an abortion because they've been raped. And that's basically it.

It's just a game of 'how much self-righteousness can I get away with, without seeming like a douchebag'.

 

[Bombila]

Nature (ultimately, God, to a Christian) is the greatest abortionist of all. More than half of all conceptions fail to implant at all. Another ten to thirty percent are lost in the first several weeks of gestation. Some of these may be flawed embryos, but there's no guarantee of that. (I am tired of hunting out the stats and links on this issue every couple months - find it for yourself)

Why does God kill so many humans before they are even an inch long?

 

[IzzyPop]

Also, removing emotion from the equation is very dangerous. While, yes, it shouldn't be the only tool used in determining legislation, it shouldn't be ignored for the purpose of pragmatism. Otherwise, it can turn into the female genocide of China.

That would actually be a pretty good example of emotionalism at work instead of the opposite. They are aborting the female children because they want a male child. A rational response would be to have the child. There is no sure fire way to be sure the next child will be male.

Some of pro-life argumentation is based on potential. The potential of the fetus becoming a "person." Then, wouldn't wasting sperm or using protection in intercourse be considered a type of preventative abortion? There could have been a life, but it was thwarted by a rubber?

Not really. Birth control is prophylactive and relatively passive in nature. Abortion is more active. I ran out of coffee this morning and I cannot think of a suitable analogy for this. Sorry.

I think it strange how people can view a fetus as a non-human. A pregnant mother after just finding out she's having a baby and then losing it would be devastated, right? Am I wrong? Don't people refer to an unborn fetus as a baby anyway or do they just say, "How's the fetus coming along?" Maybe I'm wrong on this one. Perhaps when a mother decides she'd rather have an abortion the fetus is a fetus and if she decides it's a baby it's a baby.

Got it in one!

 

[Washington]

Washington, his intention was obvious. Your insistence to use loopholes and legalism in this manner only shows your need to prove your own superiority.

You asked. I answered.

If you can't accept any answer other than the one you want then I suggest you don't ask the question.

 

[Washington]

Why is autumnleaf starting new threads when he still has outstanding questions in others anyway? For example, I'm still waiting to find out how homosexuals getting married is going to have a detrimental effect on my family unit (mum, dad, kid)

Autumnleaf is a troll. He's looking for attention. Trolls don't care who replies with what, only that they get replies.

 

[Bombila]

Reverend DG, What is this "more to being a person" you refer to? Specificity would be appreciated there on both sides, I'm sure.

Also, removing emotion from the equation is very dangerous. While, yes, it shouldn't be the only tool used in determining legislation, it shouldn't be ignored for the purpose of pragmatism. Otherwise, it can turn into the female genocide of China.

Some of pro-life argumentation is based on potential. The potential of the fetus becoming a "person." Then, wouldn't wasting sperm or using protection in intercourse be considered a type of preventative abortion? There could have been a life, but it was thwarted by a rubber?

I think it strange how people can view a fetus as a non-human. A pregnant mother after just finding out she's having a baby and then losing it would be devastated, right? Am I wrong? Don't people refer to an unborn fetus as a baby anyway or do they just say, "How's the fetus coming along?" Maybe I'm wrong on this one. Perhaps when a mother decides she'd rather have an abortion the fetus is a fetus and if she decides it's a baby it's a baby.

Considering the number of miscarriages that occur very early in pregnancy, people would spend a lot of time mourning the loss of their child if they really placed the same value on an embryo as on a born baby. Generally, it seems the more advanced a pregnancy is, the more importance the mother places on the fetus. (This is not always the case.)

If you look back several generations, you'll find that miscarriages and stillbirths were far more common than presently, when we have advanced medical intervention and prenatal care for mothers and babies. If our grandmothers and great grandmothers had placed such a high importance on every pregnancy, they would have been severely stressed by grief through much of their childbearing years.

 

[icy_crusader]

Various abortion scenarios:

1) Terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

2) Aborting at 12 weeks, so the mother can undergo radiation and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed Hodgkin's Disease.

3) Selectively terminating a quintuple pregnancy down to twins to improve the odds of successful delivery.

4) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by a serial rapist.

5) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by her father.

6) Aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrome.

7) Terminating after an unintended pregnancy occurs because a condom broke.

All of these involve killing a fetus. I'm curious as to what people think. Are some permissable and some not? What makes the difference?

I really only wish to address a few points here.

First, I can understand where some people would disagree with my idea of not totally removing emotion from the equation, but the idea that the female genocide of China was based on emotion is absurd. The female genocide resulted from a) too high a population, b) a need males who can perform heavier labor, c) a general higher regard for boys. Their pragmatic solution, kill the girls when they become too numerous. It was an obvious, simple, and effective solution to their problem. Ethics and morality had no part of the equation.

Second, to the point of these seven reasons for abortion. I actually agree that I may be inclined to overlook many of those reasons for abortion. The fact is, though, that the overwhelming majority of women get an abortion because of the inconvenience of a child, not some medical reason. Personally, I don't think a teenage girl should be able to walk into an abortion clinic without telling her parents a thing and terminate her pregnancy. Also, if someone has some objective statistics concerning this it would be appreciated. The only ones find seem to be pro-choice websites. Because it seems according to these statistics that medical related abortions only occur in less than 5-6% of the situations.

http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html



Legally, my solution is this. I would like to see roe v. wade overturned on the grounds of it not being a federal, but state issue. Then, I would like to see each state determine it's own laws concerning the matter. Here, these medical distinctions could be made if the state wished.

 

[morningstar2651]

I propose comprehensive sex education because this problem won't be solved with laws. If we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, we will reduce the number of abortions.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Various abortion scenarios:

1) Terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

2) Aborting at 12 weeks, so the mother can undergo radiation and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed Hodgkin's Disease.

3) Selectively terminating a quintuple pregnancy down to twins to improve the odds of successful delivery.

4) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by a serial rapist.

5) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by her father.

6) Aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrome.

7) Terminating after an unintended pregnancy occurs because a condom broke.

All of these involve killing a fetus. I'm curious as to what people think. Are some permissable and some not? What makes the difference?

1) I don't know what ectopic means so I can't say.

2) Depends on whether the abortion was absolutely necessary.

3) Wrong. Assuming you mean aborting only a select number in a multiple child case, that's playing favorites and in my opinion even worse than simply aborting one child. Not to mention in identical twin/triplet cases, by the time this is found out it's often very far into the pregnancy.

4) Wrong. The baby didn't rape her and doesn't deserve the death penalty for the crimes of his or her father.

5) Wrong. The baby didn't rape her and doesn't deserve the death penalty for the crimes of his or her father. Unless there is some very serious disease attatched because of the incest factor, there should be no abortion.

There is a woman named Pam Stenzel. Very well known abstinence preacher who tells kids her story. Her mother was raped, but instead of aborting her child, she put her up for adoption. Pam says that she would love to meet her biological mother and just tell her how grateful she is. In her book, Sex Has a Price Tag (great book for teenagers if you have any), she says "just because my father is a rapist doesn't mean I deserve the death penalty".

6) Wrong. My brother has autism and I don't know what I'd do if he hadn't been born. I have friend's with siblings and children who have serious mental disorders ranging from high to seriously low functioning and they all agree. My own mother had Spina Bifeda but if my grandmother had decided to abort her for fear that she "wouldn't be able to live normal", then I wouldn't be here would I? Same with my aunt, who has serious heart problems that have existed since birth. She has never wished that she hadn't been born. My mom, despite all the pain and all the hurt, was still glad that she got the chance to live, and she lived long past what the doctors expected her, and she had two kids and one of them at least can look back and realize that people are killing their kids over these reasons and I was lucky enough not to have the problem. I was a candidate for abortion but my mother didn't have to think twice. Pregnancy could've been very harmful to her and me but she went through with it anyway. Then she did it again with my brother.

7) Do I really have to say it on this last one?

People seem to forget that nothing is set in stone. Even if your baby is healthy, things can still happen to him. Is that any good reason to get rid of him. I can speak from my experience, from my mothers experience, and from so many other peoples, we appreciate what our mothers went through and we appreciate that they chose to give use life instead of taking the easy way out. Just because that baby doesn't understand now, doesn't mean they won't. There's a far more likely chance that they will grow up and learn about what their mother went through, and they will appreciate it.

A child is a beautiful thing. In our world, anyone will jump just to protect a child, even a child that isn't theirs. So why is it that just because we can see him or touch him, an unborn child is suddenly less than that. Because it's painful? I think it is selfish, for a woman to say she doesn't want to go through the pain of pregnancy. Selfish because her mother did it, her grandmother did, and if you far enough you'll see mothers who did it without even the help of pain relievers but they still did it.

I have this dream, of one day creating an adoption agency mended specifically for children who would have otherwise been aborted. I don't want to have kids but I want to adopt kids, specifically ones that others would have had to take the death penalty. I'm not like other people who see this problem and then talk about it. I actually want to fix it, because I realize it's not an easy decision but women are still making it. It isn't the kids fault, whatever the reason. You can't take out nature's mistakes, the father's mistakes or your mistakes, on someone who hasn't done anything.

 

[Spherical Time]

I'm curious. Don't the bible at some point say that life starts with breath? Anyone have that passage and the ones that anti-abortionist point to when they say that life begins at conception?

 

[Khameo]

Whether abortion is right or wrong is personal opinion.

The question is whether or not it should be legal.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument against it.

 

[icy_crusader]

Various abortion scenarios:

1) Terminating an ectopic pregnancy.

2) Aborting at 12 weeks, so the mother can undergo radiation and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed Hodgkin's Disease.

3) Selectively terminating a quintuple pregnancy down to twins to improve the odds of successful delivery.

4) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by a serial rapist.

5) Terminating a pregnancy after a girl is raped by her father.

6) Aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrome.

7) Terminating after an unintended pregnancy occurs because a condom broke.

All of these involve killing a fetus. I'm curious as to what people think. Are some permissable and some not? What makes the difference?

Aren't these are kind of irrelevant? The overwhelming number of abortions don't include any of these reasons with the exclusion of number 7 which turns abortion into a second line of defense type of birth control.
http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm
Less than 7% of women claim to have had an abortion for a medical/rape reasons. So, when we are discussing abortion we are discussing it used as a form of birth control.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html


While I agree with morningStar on comprehensive sex education, but I also propose returning abortion to a state issue. I would like to see roe v. wade being overturned as being a non-federal issue. Then, each state would then make it's own stipulations from there concerning those specific medical conditions.

At the state level, I would like to see walk-in abortion clinics banned. An abortion would a require a doctor's suggestion that the birth of the child would result in either the death of the mother or child.

This solution isn't perfect, I know, but I believe it to be a good option. Any comments?

Also, the verse concerning life beginning at breathe is Genesis 2:7. This in no way deals with abortion and is pulled out of context from a story about God's greatness and ability to create. How can it even apply to a baby when Adam was created as a man? Probably with no belly button.


Finally, lets go ahead and be pragmatic. For a nation to have a healthy growth rate, the average family should have 2.5 children. 2 to make up for each parents stake in the economy and a .5 to make up for for families with less children or singles. Interestingly, we have seen a big decrease in the national birth rate of the US.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aabirthrate.htm
Then, we wonder why the U.S. Economy and social security are in such ruts. With not enough people to put in, we are not going to get enough out. All of these facts are pulled apart and never put together. The world news is one big story, not divided up into politics, economy, and life styles. Each one affects the other, to believe otherwise is simply foolish.

 

[icy_crusader]

I thought I made mistake in making my first post, so I tried it again. I'll have two posts coming up after moderator approval. The second deals with more issues and the first one's issues should be in the second. Sorry all.

 

[HannahBanana]

1) I don't know what ectopic means so I can't say.

2) Depends on whether the abortion was absolutely necessary.

3) Wrong. Assuming you mean aborting only a select number in a multiple child case, that's playing favorites and in my opinion even worse than simply aborting one child. Not to mention in identical twin/triplet cases, by the time this is found out it's often very far into the pregnancy.

4) Wrong. The baby didn't rape her and doesn't deserve the death penalty for the crimes of his or her father.

5) Wrong. The baby didn't rape her and doesn't deserve the death penalty for the crimes of his or her father. Unless there is some very serious disease attatched because of the incest factor, there should be no abortion.

There is a woman named Pam Stenzel. Very well known abstinence preacher who tells kids her story. Her mother was raped, but instead of aborting her child, she put her up for adoption. Pam says that she would love to meet her biological mother and just tell her how grateful she is. In her book, Sex Has a Price Tag (great book for teenagers if you have any), she says "just because my father is a rapist doesn't mean I deserve the death penalty".

6) Wrong. My brother has autism and I don't know what I'd do if he hadn't been born. I have friend's with siblings and children who have serious mental disorders ranging from high to seriously low functioning and they all agree. My own mother had Spina Bifeda but if my grandmother had decided to abort her for fear that she "wouldn't be able to live normal", then I wouldn't be here would I? Same with my aunt, who has serious heart problems that have existed since birth. She has never wished that she hadn't been born. My mom, despite all the pain and all the hurt, was still glad that she got the chance to live, and she lived long past what the doctors expected her, and she had two kids and one of them at least can look back and realize that people are killing their kids over these reasons and I was lucky enough not to have the problem. I was a candidate for abortion but my mother didn't have to think twice. Pregnancy could've been very harmful to her and me but she went through with it anyway. Then she did it again with my brother.

7) Do I really have to say it on this last one?

People seem to forget that nothing is set in stone. Even if your baby is healthy, things can still happen to him. Is that any good reason to get rid of him. I can speak from my experience, from my mothers experience, and from so many other peoples, we appreciate what our mothers went through and we appreciate that they chose to give use life instead of taking the easy way out. Just because that baby doesn't understand now, doesn't mean they won't. There's a far more likely chance that they will grow up and learn about what their mother went through, and they will appreciate it.

A child is a beautiful thing. In our world, anyone will jump just to protect a child, even a child that isn't theirs. So why is it that just because we can see him or touch him, an unborn child is suddenly less than that. Because it's painful? I think it is selfish, for a woman to say she doesn't want to go through the pain of pregnancy. Selfish because her mother did it, her grandmother did, and if you far enough you'll see mothers who did it without even the help of pain relievers but they still did it.

I have this dream, of one day creating an adoption agency mended specifically for children who would have otherwise been aborted. I don't want to have kids but I want to adopt kids, specifically ones that others would have had to take the death penalty. I'm not like other people who see this problem and then talk about it. I actually want to fix it, because I realize it's not an easy decision but women are still making it. It isn't the kids fault, whatever the reason. You can't take out nature's mistakes, the father's mistakes or your mistakes, on someone who hasn't done anything.

1) http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/ectopic.html

2) Of course it's necessary. That is, unless you'd rather have the mother die from cancer.

3) So you'd rather the woman didn't have a successful delivery, then? Also, women can know within the first trimester how many children they're having. Here's proof: http://www.babycenter.com/0_when-and-how-to-find-out-if-youre-carrying-twins-or-more_3579.bc.

4) What if the woman were mentally traumatized by the rape and would be even more traumatized by being forced to remain pregnant? Or do you not care about the woman's mental health and well-being as long as she remains pregnant?

5) See my answer to 4). Also, just because Pam Stenzel's mother carried Pam to term doesn't mean that every woman can (or should) do that as well. Pam's mother is one woman, and her actions do not represent the entire community of women as a whole.

6) What if a woman doesn't have the time/energy/money required to take care of a Down's baby and she doesn't want her baby to be shipped from foster home to foster home since the chances of him/her being adopted are very slim?

7) No, you don't have to say it, because we've all heard it and refuted it thousands of times already. Thank you for saving us some time by allowing us to not have to refute it yet again.

Also, just because you consider pregnancy to be "a blessing" doesn't mean that every woman has to. Sometimes pregnancy is a complication. Why shouldn't a woman be able to rid herself of her pregnancy when that happens? Seriously, why should your morals be able to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body? What makes your morals any better than a pro-choicer's morals?

 

[FaithLikeARock]

1) http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/ectopic.html

2) Of course it's necessary. That is, unless you'd rather have the mother die from cancer.

3) So you'd rather the woman didn't have a successful delivery, then? Also, women can know within the first trimester how many children they're having. Here's proof: http://www.babycenter.com/0_when-and-how-to-find-out-if-youre-carrying-twins-or-more_3579.bc.

4) What if the woman were mentally traumatized by the rape and would be even more traumatized by being forced to remain pregnant? Or do you not care about the woman's mental health and well-being as long as she remains pregnant?

5) See my answer to 4). Also, just because Pam Stenzel's mother carried Pam to term doesn't mean that every woman can (or should) do that as well. Pam's mother is one woman, and her actions do not represent the entire community of women as a whole.

6) What if a woman doesn't have the time/energy/money required to take care of a Down's baby and she doesn't want her baby to be shipped from foster home to foster home since the chances of him/her being adopted are very slim?

7) No, you don't have to say it, because we've all heard it and refuted it thousands of times already. Thank you for saving us some time by allowing us to not have to refute it yet again.

Also, just because you consider pregnancy to be "a blessing" doesn't mean that every woman has to. Sometimes pregnancy is a complication. Why shouldn't a woman be able to rid herself of her pregnancy when that happens? Seriously, why should your morals be able to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body? What makes your morals any better than a pro-choicer's morals?

1) I shall read it later, but thank you.

2) Not neccesarily. There are cases where the pregnancy isn't a complication for the chemo. Besides, I would hope the mother would be worried about the affects on the child, no on her.

3) Depends on whether they're fraternal or identical, depends on the equipment being used in the ultrasound, depends, depends, depends.

4) I have been raped. I can guarantee you that the "looming" pregnancy wouldn't traumatize me. That's like saying we shouldn't ask recently raped women to help in a trial because it might traumatize them. Who cares that the rapist might go free without their testimony. Wouldn't want to risk their comfort for that would we?

5) See number 4. Also, why not? I've never met a woman that's "too weak". In fact last I checked, we lived in an age where women are portrayed as strong and capable people. Yet for some reason they can't handle something that's been going on since the beginning of time? A few years ago the new feminist movement used pregnancy as a means of proving how strong they are. Now they're running from it. What kind of sense does that make?

6) So let's just kill him and not give him that chance? We might as well kill every single criminal because we don't want to take a chance. Life is full of chances. And the adoption system is full of loving families. The majority of those still in the system are generally older kids. Babies are adopted all the time, regardless of disorders.

7) Good, because I know this argument and it's just a lot of flawed logic.

I also can't help but notice you ignored my idea. I was hoping I could get some feedback on it. All of the arguments used to justify abortion don't even make sense. Because you'd have to apply them everywhere. It's like a Law and Order episode I watched once where a kid raped his teacher and then got off with counseling because he said he "couldn't control himself". Then by the end another rapist is claiming the same thing. It isn't my belief, it's common sense. You don't go around killing people you CAN see, so why should it be okay to kill people you can't. Why is it parents burdened by their living children are quickly reprimanded by society but millions of children are killed everyday and anyone who notices it is obviously just trying to take away woman's rights.

I don't care if abortion is legal. I'm sure there are cases I could find that it might even be justified. But most of the time is useless, an out for people who want all of the good things in life but don't want the consequences, even the okay consequences. A baby isn't an STD, so we shouldn't treat it like such and just try to get rid of it. In the end they're the exact same as the rest of us. They depend on their mothers in the exact same way thousands of born children depend on their mothers. I don't understand what sort of selfish person thinks that they have it bad when they get pregnant. Look around. There are women all over the world who deal with it. Women who aren't necessarily strong or successful. And there are women who don't take the easy route. The only one stopping any woman that chooses abortion from being that strong is their own selfish wants.

Oh, I'm sorry, their "bodily integrity". As far as I'm concerned, any woman that can do something like that just has a body.

 

[jayem]

Aren't these are kind of irrelevant? The overwhelming number of abortions don't include any of these reasons with the exclusion of number 7 which turns abortion into a second line of defense type of birth control.

Well the OP said "abortion is obviously murder." A categorical statement that didn't except ANY of the reasons an abortion might be performed. Any abortion, for any reason, kills a completely innocent human fetus. Do you accept that sometimes, there are cogent reasons to terminate a pregnancy? If you do, as any reasonable person would, then you cannot make such an absolute moral statement as was made in the OP. And then you have the task of explaining in what situations, and why, it may be permissible to kill an innocent fetal human.

 

[ReverendDG]

Reverend DG, What is this "more to being a person" you refer to? Specificity would be appreciated there on both sides, I'm sure.

edit: decided to see if i can find a clearer explanation, i agree with john locke:

1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.

from wikipedia

but thanks for quote mining what i said, you forgot the part after, "other than existing"
my point was that the anti-choice people argue that potential is more important than the person this potential person lives in.

Also, removing emotion from the equation is very dangerous. While, yes, it shouldn't be the only tool used in determining legislation, it shouldn't be ignored for the purpose of pragmatism. Otherwise, it can turn into the female genocide of China.

theres nothing wrong with emotion, but i look at most of the anti-choice arguments as special pleading and pure emotionalism.

Some of pro-life argumentation is based on potential. The potential of the fetus becoming a "person." Then, wouldn't wasting sperm or using protection in intercourse be considered a type of preventative abortion? There could have been a life, but it was thwarted by a rubber?

thats not abortion. if you go down that road, you might as well say not having sex is abortion

I think it strange how people can view a fetus as a non-human.

who says this? of course they are genetically human, they are not persons though

A pregnant mother after just finding out she's having a baby and then losing it would be devastated, right? Am I wrong?

depends on if they want a baby or not, what kind of question is that?

Don't people refer to an unborn fetus as a baby anyway or do they just say, "How's the fetus coming along?" Maybe I'm wrong on this one.

yes so what? people are taught to call that stage of life a baby, by the way unborn fetus is redundant

Perhaps when a mother decides she'd rather have an abortion the fetus is a fetus and if she decides it's a baby it's a baby.

i would say its her choice and she can call it what she will, since its inside her

i suppose calling it a fetus is also emotionalism, just the same as calling it a baby.
both terms invoke different feelings, but i really could care less what the genetic offspring is called.
words have history after all, fetus is a clinical term and baby is a common term.
what ever you want to call it, i still think the choice should be up to the mother not to the state or the religion or society