Should Christians call FETUSES "BABIES"?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Whether fetuses are babies (human beings) would seem to be the question of "abortion," so for anyone engaged in that debate, is it not BEGGING THE QUESTION, merely assuming the answer, to refer to "unborn babies"?

For one thing, it suggests those who are not "pro-life," those many many people, think "killing babies is just fine." Which is a pretty uncharitable view of what people think.
Who can you quote who says: "the murder of babies should be a free choice.?

Also, one might notice the power of repetition to bend the truth. One can point to instances in history where falsities have been constantly repeated until many come to believe them, with dastardly results. Given how often the question is begged, how often Christians use the term "baby" in the manner I refer to, might one be forgiven for thinking that constant repetition is used as a rhetorical and argumentative device? Which is a somewhat questionable manner in which to pursue a controversial issue, in my humble opinion.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I call on everyone to diligently search for the truth in these and other matters, so

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

[pgp_protector]

What's the Definition of each, and are the Definitions the same?

 

[mmksparbud]

OK---you were shut down on another thread for promoting abortion and you are starting another thread in the very same way to the very same end-------that is not allowed here!

 

[SkyWriting]

Whether fetuses are babies (human beings) would seem to be the question of "abortion," so for anyone engaged in that debate, is it not BEGGING THE QUESTION, merely assuming the answer, to refer to "unborn babies"?For one thing, it suggests those who are not "pro-life," those many many people, think "killing babies is just fine." Which is a pretty uncharitable view of what people think.Who can you quote who says: "the murder of babies should be a free choice.?Also, one might notice the power of repetition to bend the truth. One can point to instances in history where falsities have been constantly repeated until many come to believe them, with dastardly results. Given how often the question is begged, how often Christians use the term "baby" in the manner I refer to, might one be forgiven for thinking that constant repetition is used as a rhetorical and argumentative device? Which is a somewhat questionable manner in which to pursue a controversial issue, in my humble opinion.

They should use the term best suited for the conversation.

Proverbs 15:1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
2 The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What's the Definition of each, and are the Definitions the same?

One is referring to the same thing, what is gestating in a womb. It is not to beg the question of whether it is a human being to use the neutral term of science ("fetus") - which does not indicate that it is a human being, nor does it indicate it is not a human being, whereas babies are necessarily and always human beings.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

OK---you were shut down on another thread for promoting abortion and you are starting another thread in the very same way to the very same end-------that is not allowed here!

Injustice sometimes has to be endured - if you are so righteously good, please point out where I here (or elsewhere, but especially here, since it seems it's this discussion you want to shut down), point out what I am saying that recommends abortion. I was falsely accused there (you've heard of the Commandment against bearing false witness, I presume), and here you want to do it again?
YOU ARE FALSELY IMPUTING MOTIVES.

 

[mmksparbud]

You were shut down on that other thread --this is what you started out with--the definition of fetus, and ended up with it's not a crime to kill a fetus, but it is a crime to kill babies. You were promoting abortion of the unborn as you do not believe that the unborn are a human being until they are born. So you say you are not promoting the abortion of babies, it is a play on words for you do think it's OK to chop up, crush the skulls, and suck the brains out of fetuses because they are not human beings!! I am not falsely imputing motives, anyone can look up you other thread and read it for themselves.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You were shut down on that other thread --this is what you started out with--the definition of fetus, and ended up with it's not a crime to kill a fetus, but it is a crime to kill babies. You were promoting abortion of the unborn as you do not believe that the unborn are a human being until they are born. So you say you are not promoting the abortion of babies, it is a play on words for you do think it's OK to chop up, crush the skulls, and suck the brains out of fetuses because they are not human beings!! I am not falsely imputing motives, anyone can look up you other thread and read it for themselves.

I think you should, if this is as serious a charge as you seem to think it is, at least quote me. (I.e. prove it - I think what you say is mostly false accusations.) I doubt I started out with "the definition fetus," though I wonder, is that some sort of crime. IF one defines "fetus," as I just did for "pgp protector," surely that is not saying one should kill it. You look it up in a dictionary - is that what I am being accused of, defining it?, and see if defining "fetus" means the dictionary is recommending abortion.
And notice what you are accusing me of having "ended up with": "It's not a crime to kill a fetus, but it is a crime to kill babies." Well my dear, although I doubt I said anything about crime, what you accuse me of is simply a couple of facts, simply the reality of our society. Are very straight forward facts that any knowledgeable person would surely recognize to be the case, are they to be outlawed here? (Society with it's laws defines what is a crime, in case you didn't notice.)

I suspect even you would agree that "it is a crime to kill babies," the last of the two dastardly facts you accuse me of holding to or putting forth or something like that.
And surely you can (if you put your mind to it) appreciate that a belief I may have, even the one you accuse me of, that having a belief is not to promote anything.
Look, IF fetuses are NOT human beings (and most of society seems to think so, or at least the laws say so), that is very consequential, and it would seem to be appropriate to discuss abortion, that is, figure out the truth of that. Of course when you already have all truth then of course there is nothing to discuss, is that how you view it?

btw, I could think it is ok to abort, and that fact OF MY THOUGHT could be the case without my ever even expressing it and how then would I be recommending any particular course for anyone? And even if I thought it was the truth, what you say I think it is okay to do with fetuses, and even if I actually expressed that, that does not mean I would be advocating anyone do that. Just like you could think it was okay for somebody to have red hair, yet that would not mean you were telling anyone they should have red hair.

 

[mmksparbud]

Your last thread on this was not just shut down, but erased--You have other threads that are along the same line---your premise is always to discuss the difference between baby and fetus. Then go on to a fetus is not a human being,

"It is not true that what is in the womb (not a baby) is "exactly the same as the baby out of the womb." A primary difference is the real baby has used lungs actually working lungs, breathing the breath of life. It has eyes that have opened when it is no longer parasitically imprisoned in a womb, and many sensory and reflex actions of actually used organs. It is autonomous in that it is, unlike the fetus, not totally dependent for subsistence on a tubal connection to a woman. And most importantly, it then first an animal, an animal being, the member of a species, a human being.

Note: If those who favor abortion do not agree on every point, it is NOT because "they make up their narrative as they go along," only that some have a better and more clear and fuller understanding than others.
Last edited: Mar 16, 2016
Douglas Hendrickson, Mar 16, 2016 Report"

I have no wish to have any further discussion with you--just letting others know what you're doing.
They can you look up your other threads themselves. At least what hasn't been erased. Unwatchng.

 

[football5680]

Why would we buy in and begin to use a word whose purpose is dehumanization? If we were having some kind of discussion with the Nazi's about the people they persecuted, would it really be charitable to refer to these people as sub-humans since this is what they thought. As bad as the Nazi's were, even they would not admit that that they were killing innocent human beings.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Oxford dictionary of the English language's definition of foetus: An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

It says unborn human. So use foetus by all means as it still implies it is a human, just like calling a foetus a baby. Is it okay to kill humans?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Why would we buy in and begin to use a word whose purpose is dehumanization? If we were having some kind of discussion with the Nazi's about the people they persecuted, would it really be charitable to refer to these people as sub-humans since this is what they thought. As bad as the Nazi's were, even they would not admit that that they were killing innocent human beings.

Are you talking about the word "fetus"? What is growing in a womb is in biology, textbooks, etc., normally called a fetus. Regardless of the type of animal. When the pregnant animal is a human being, then of course what is in her womb is appropriately called a human fetus. In the context of the discussion of abortion this is usually well understood so the adjective "human" can be and is often dropped - but it does not mean there is any dehumanization.

I think what you are objecting to is not being able to maintain what might be called a false humanization - the actual human state of a fetus is indicated by "human fetus," or when it is clear we are talking about the human species homo sapiens, the adjective is understood and the reality remains. What I suggest might be a false humanization is wanting to call this a baby since by definition a baby is a human being; that may not be justified by looking closely at the nature of things.

My response to your Nazification of the argument is that it might be as "charitable to refer to these people as sub-humans since this is what they thought," as it would be charitable to refer to fetuses as babies since this is what some think. I.e, in either case just because it is thought does not make it true.

I think we would both agree (leaving aside what might or might not be the import of the term "innocent,") that the Nazis were killing human beings. That is where the parallel breaks down - it is not so clearly so that it is legitimate to call the fetus a baby. I think if one tried to argue with biologists that a fetus should not be called a fetus one would not get very far.

That is, a fetus is a fetus like a human being is a human being - quite incontestably what it is and not another thing. In other words, virtually everyone would not subscribe to the idea that a Jew is not a human being (except Muslims?), and so too should no one try to distort with redefinition the reality in the womb, with a mere fiat of language. (Much like the Nazis did by calling them "sub-human.") Calling fetuses "babies" is to use such a fiat, if one cannot otherwise demonstrate that that is what they are. The terminology "fetus" is NOT (in itself) in any way dehumanizing, whereas the term baby tries to claim much more that that it is "a mere fetus." "Fetus" is the universally understood and accepted way of referring to the reality that is there, with the exception I guess of someone who wants to merely by the name applied to it give some much greater reality to what is there than what is apparent and incontestable.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The Oxford dictionary of the English language's definition of foetus: An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

It says unborn human. So use foetus by all means as it still implies it is a human, just like calling a foetus a baby. Is it okay to kill humans?

So what does "unborn human" mean? It means "unborn human flesh." It does not say nor mean "unborn human being" in the sense that it at one and the same time both unborn and a human being. If it is the case that a human being cannot be unborn (as I suspect), then "an unborn human" means what you and I might both agree it means - that it consists of human flesh and is the reality in the womb that in the normal course of reproductive events becomes a human being. I guess we couldn't even agree on that, you would want to say it is always a human being.
I would ask then how you define "being"?

BTW, what do you make of what they call an "offspring" that is not "off-sprung"?

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Closed for review.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[.Mikha'el.]

ON!

Thread permanently closed!

Topics Requiring Special Consideration:
● Please check each forum's Statement of Purpose thread for any additional guidelines related to these controversial topics.
● Abortion, adultery, premarital sex, and marijuana use may be discussed, but encouraging participation in these activities is not allowed. Illegal activities may not be encouraged or promoted*.
● Homosexuality may not be promoted* on CF. Same sex marriage may be discussed from a political, legal, historical, and civil rights point of view in the American Politics and Christian Current Affairs forums. Homosexuality and SSM may be discussed in the Congregationalforums according to each forums' guidelines in their Statement of Purpose. Homosexuality and SSM may be discussed, without promotion*, in the Struggles with Sexuality and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues. Members may not promote* homosexuality or same sex marriage in their profiles.
● Transsexualism and transgenderism may only be discussed, without promotion*, in the Struggles with Sexuality and Ask a Chaplainforums solely for the purpose of seeking support with personal struggles related to these issues. Members may not promote* transsexualism or transgenderism in their profiles.
● Promoting* or proselytizing religious beliefs or religions (including Satanism or Occultism) other than Christianity is not allowed. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith which is found in the Sitewide Rules.
● Posts which attempt to exorcise or bind demons, or posts which give instructions on how to complete deliverance are not allowed.
● Please do not give professional legal, financial, medical, or other counseling. Do not direct, imply, or suggest that others should disregard doctors' orders regarding medical diagnosis and/or treatment.
● Personal Prophecy (prophetic utterance) will be considered off-topic to all site forums. These may be posted in your own personal blog.
*Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

OFF!