Friday, April 2, 2010

Baby vs Fetus & Human Beings.

Two things I've been seeing antis claim a lot lately, and I wanted to go over them.

1. If you think a fetus isn't a baby, then you're crazy.

Antis are pretty solid in this. If you don't use the word "baby" to describe, well, a fetus, then you must have either had an abortion you are trying to not think about, or you support abortion and don't want to think of the fetus as human.

Well, news for them. Fetuses are human. Fetuses are alive. Fetuses can be aborted.

I honestly don't care if an individual calls a fetus a baby, a peanut, a poopie, a butterfly, a clump of cells or a "unique, individual person with a life planned by God!" It can be aborted. Period.

Another thing I notice when antichoicers bring up this "baby" thing, is that they make a LOT of strawmans. For instance, if I say "it's a fetus, not a baby" then the antichoicer might respond, "Well, when does it come alive then!? Oh, you're crazy for thinking it's not human! What is it, a melon?" These are both strawmans. Calling a fetus a fetus does not mean you think it's dead (in fact, most prochoicers I know recognize that a fetus is living). Calling a fetus a fetus doesn't mean you think it's a zebra fetus; it's still a *human* fetus. But it's a fetus.

Fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus. fetus.

Baby is a word that can apply to any number of things. For instance, a 70 year old women can call her youngest son a baby, even though he's 40 years old. Or, a cashier in the grocery store can go "that customer was such a baby, they wanted ALL their groceries in individual bags" when the customer is 27. Babies can also be of other species- there are baby lions and baby zebras. Heck, I consider my cats to be my "babies."

So when an anti insists that a fetus isn't a fetus but a baby, I just shake my head. That's failure to understand science.

Of course, it should be noted that once you *do* convince the anti that a fetus is a fetus, they simply go "Oh, well that means 'young one' in Latin." You would think this definition would allow them to accept the word more often. Alas, not so much.

2. Antis also claim that if a person recognizes the fetus as a human being, then they must be antichoice. This is because, in their minds, human beings cannot be killed.

Of course, this is obviously wrong. Antis like to live in a pretend world when talking about abortion. For instance, a quote:

By the way, how can they believe in "rights" when they believe our entire lifespans can be taken from us, we therefore do not have a right to live our lives and therefore cannot have any "rights" at all?
By Joe at Jill Stanek's blog.

This above quote shows that the writer, an antichoicer, wants the reader to believe that he doesn't think that people can be killed. However, I'm willing to bet that Joe is either for the death penalty, supportive of war, or both. Or more.

See, antis have no problem with killing born people. It's just something about fetuses that gets them.

But back on topic. When one recognizes that human beings can be killed, then this entire argument falls apart. Especially when we see that human beings can be killed legally (outside of abortion, of course, since that is what we are questioning). I've already gone over this. More than once. But it just doesn't seem to stick.

Even if the fetus is a living person, it can be aborted. Alright? Got it? Thanks. Now try to make a new argument. Because I'm really tired of this one.


  1. "I'm willing to bet that Joe is either for the death penalty, supportive of war, or both. Or more."

    And if this is the same Joe (I don't know if he is), then he also supports killing doctors.

  2. Are you for the death penalty and supportive of war or both?

  3. Are you talking about me or Kushiels?

  4. Anonymous- It doesn't matter if I support war or the death penalty, because I don't claim that human beings cannot be killed.

  5. CP - We ALL know that "prolife", as we speak of it in most of our conversations, is regarding protection of a human being from the evil act of abortion. Supporting a war or the death penalty, has nothing to do with being anti-abortion. You twist those into the convo, but really, one has nothing to do with the other.

    So answer the questions with a yes or no please:

    Do you support war?
    Do You support the Death Penalty?

  6. YooHoo,

    PC, you seem to have issues with communication over here too. You must be attending church somewhere on this Holy of all Days but my guess is the whole Christian part is a sham as well.

    He has Risen and Living Among Us! Please stop spitting at Him.

  7. What Christian church to you belong to? I'm interested in what Christian leader is advocating your thinking. Inquiring minds want to know.

  8. justsnap8-

    I don't support going to war, though I do support our troops who follow orders over there.
    I do not support the death penalty.

    If you want to claim that "prolife" is only about abortion, perhaps you (being, antis in general) should stop getting mad when prochoicers say that antis only care about fetal life. Or, if you DO care about born life, stop being hypocritical and supporting death while claiming to be "prolife" (again, general "you" here).


    I don't think my denomination is important. There are a number of prochoice Christian groups. There are a couple listed here: There are even prochoice Catholics, though I am not one of them.

    My apologies all around for not replying sooner, I was busy celebrating Easter.

  9. Do you know what the word "fetus" means? It is simply Latin for baby.

    Also, your blog name is confusing. I can see someone being amoral enough to be pro-abort. However, that position is completely incompatible with being a christian.

    The pro abortion crowd likes to throw the hypocrite label out as a way to end discussion without accepting that their "logic" cuts back the same way. Personally, I can reconcile being against killing innocent little kids with my acceptance of society executing guilty murderers. The opposite is what is nonsensical.

  10. LargeBill, I have never seen a dictionary or other word-sourcing book/website claim that fetus meant baby. Perhaps you could provide me with a link to where you learned this information?

    There is nothing incompatible with Christianity and being prochoice. I'm sorry if you think otherwise. There is an earlier blog post which provides a number of prochoice Christian links, if you're willing to learn something new.

  11. It is not a matter of my being willing to learn something new. What you are asking me to do is accept wrong as right. Folks may tell you they can call themselves a christian while being in favor of abortion, but the two are completely incompatible. A reasonable analogy would be if I foolishly paid dues to be a member of some vegetarian group but continued to eat tasty beef steaks each night. I think you could claim I wasn't really a vegetarian despite having a valid membership card.

    I pray your eyes and heart are opened. I am not passing judgment. However, judgment day awaits us all. True ignorance is not held against us, but willful ignorance is no defense.

  12. LargeBill, did you happen to find that reference to fetus meaning baby? Or are you still looking?

    I would never ask you to accept something is wrong. I would, however, ask you to educate yourself about a topic, and perhaps see a new point of view.

    Again, I'll say to you- being prochoice and being Christian are not incompatible. You can't relate Christianity and abortion to vegetarianism and eating meat, because the first two are not opposites as the latter two are.

    1. Actually there are different types of vegetarians, and most eat some form of meat. So the latter two are also compatible

  13. Medically it's not a baby until week 38 or it's born, no matter when that may be, so calling a embryo or fetus a baby is incorrect. And yes, of course it's a life. But life starts before the conception. A sperm is a life too. That is why the Catholic church is against masturbation for instance. Do we discuss the massmurder of "babies" happening every day by teenage boys?

    I was told by a anti-abortion person that pro-choice ppl just insist on calling it a embryo or fetus because we try to sugarcoat what an abortion really is. I told her that we need no sugarcoating or faking the facts since we are based on proper medical facts. It's the anti-abortion sites posting pictures of embryos claiming it's a fetus with full hands, feet, eyes etc. Not to mention all the false facts about the hazardous effects abortion would have on a woman. If someone is tampering with information they are the ones most likely trying to hide something and not be able to take the truth. Shame on them trying to mislead women when they are trying to make their most difficult choice in their lives.

    1. Why 38 weeks? The ability for thought begans at 20. "Fetuses" can survive outside the womb as early as 21 weeks?

      That may be the medical terminology for it...but the medical profession has reasons for calling it that that don't have anything to do with whether it has a soul and is a life that should be protected. I have no problem with them calling it a fetus, but that terminology shouldn't be used as justification for killing a late-term child (whatever you want to call it--it's a human life!) Birth does relatively nothing to make us "more human" and is just a poor place to give the right to life in my opinion. (Giving the right to life at conception is a poor place too, in my opionion, simply because it would be nearly impossible to practically protect that right without majorly impeding on other rights). But Birth is too late.

  14. Please explain Christianity to me. What is a Christian??

  15. A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and the God of the Old Testament as the one true God.

  16. Just believing? There are passages that would contradict this. Jesus himself says that He will be telling many "I never knew you" even though they do things 'in His name'. Satan also believed this about Jesus. Could you please give me more of a distinction as to what differentiates people who believe Jesus is the one true God, and what a Christian is? I know some people would agree with what you say but tell me they are not Christians.

  17. ....oh, and on topic - So, I may reasonably infer that you support war, and you support the death penalty, and you support abortion, right? Because if abortion is ok, then so is war, and so is the death penalty - and if you're trying to point out hypocrisy here than you have to judge yourself by your own standard. If one is ok and not the others then your argument is false and you yourself may be found hypocritical.

    Answer these questions for me - and remember, the premise that each of these examples is not murder is true.

    Killing in war is not murder, and is justified because...?

    Administering the death penalty is not murder, and is justified because...?

    Abortion is not murder, and is justified because...?

    And please, when you answer, remember that the argument we are adressing here is justifiable killing, not whether or not the soldier, government employee, or mother has (or has not) a plethora of reasons to kill. All things must be considered equal - the soldier is upholding an oath and following orders, the government employee responsible for administering the death sentence is doing his job, the mother is ....(well, you tell me, but it has to remain equal and consistent with the other two). Get it? If you are putting these three things on equal footing, then their personal reasons they are doing it can not be the justification. The justification must be made for why the object being killed needs to be killed.

    Here, I'll help you with an example of what I mean -

    Killing in war is not murder, and is justifed to defend the country against enemies who would seek to take our lives and freedom from us and destroy our way of life. or - because an enemy combatant is pointing a gun at my head with the intent to kill me. (maybe not your answer, but you get the point)

    Or maybe you want to be more particular - for example:
    The death penalty is not murder, and is justifed because this man raped, sodomized, and tortured a five year old girl, and then buried her alive.

    It's probably best not to insert a false argument into your defense of the right to abortion. And if you do reply, don't forget to answer the three questions.

  18. Anonymous, you seem to know the answers to your questions already. Why ask me if you know the answer?

    Obviously, there are many different beliefs on what it takes to be a Christian. That's why we have so many different denominations. But believing in Jesus is the important thing which binds us all together.

    As for your assumptions- no, you cannot make them. As well, if you read above, you would see that I already answered those thoughts.

    Your idea that one type of killing being acceptable makes other types acceptable is silly. Legal killing is allowed because of laws, not because there are other types of legal killing.

    Legally, abortion is not murder because it doesn't fit the definition of murder:

    n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.
    Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law."

    Legality and ability to be justified seem to be two different things. If you want legal justification- well, the law says it's legal. If you want moral justification, that's different. Antichoicers are always complaining that "legal and right" are not the same (which I agree with). So I don't want to get the two mixed up, as if they are interchangeable.

  19. The same definition would apply to war, and to adminstration of the death penalty. And, as I pointed out before asking the questions that for some reason you did not answer, the premise in each of the three examples is TRUE --- none of them are murder in the legal sense.

    I am only defining the argument in your terms. Killing in war is not murder, and carrying out the death penalty is not murder. So what is your point in introducing them into a discussion about abortion? The only similarity is that they are all killing living things. And if you say abortion is justified killing, then you can not fault someone for saying war involves justified killing, or the death penalty involves justified killing unless you can give reasons why abortion is exclusive in being justified. I guess it all becomes a matter of opinion in the any distinction between legal killing. Unless, of course, you don't think abortion is killing. If you don't I'd be interested to hear how you don't think it is.

    But moving on --

    What are some of your beliefs on what it means to be a Christian, and on what do you base those beliefs? I am not answering my own questions - I am merely saying that some people who would say they aren't Christians will concede that Jesus is who he says he is. Can you please elaborate (since your blog is, after all, titled "Living as a Pro-Choice Christian")? There must be something more. Perhaps you could tell me, experientially, how did you become a "Christian" and what does it mean to you to be one.

  20. Ah. I think I've found the confusion between us. Although you can correct me if I'm wrong.

    You said:
    "So what is your point in introducing them into a discussion about abortion?"

    This isn't a discussion solely about abortion( at least not here, in this blog post). My post is about killing in general, and human beings in general.

    I don't think I've faulted people for only saying that war is justified, but when that comment is put TOGETHER with the idea that "all life is sacred" and we should never kill anyone for any reason, THAT is when I call people out. Because those two statements together don't make sense.

    As for the Christian discussion- it doesn't really fit in to this topic, and I don't want to derail farther than I already have (besides that multiple conversations can become confusing). If there is another post you want to ask questions on, feel free. But please try to keep your comments relevant to the post. Thanks!

  21. It seems to me that you are purposely dodging. The 'Christian' discussion would be inherant in everything you post, because your blog is titled "Living as a Pro choice CHRISTIAN". Don't Christians refer to the 'Great Comission'? Perhaps you could write a post that would answer my questions and give 'relevance' to further questions. I would be interested to read it. Maybe you have addressed my questions in a previous post and you can tell me when that was. Or, maybe you just don't want to discuss it - in which case I would have to ask "why?!".

  22. As George Carlin said: "If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-schooled, you're fucked".

  23. Ok, so when does a fetus become a baby? Why is that an unreasonable question? It's an important one I think. When do we become human beings with a soul? You really have to answer that in stead of just arguing semantics (what it's "called"). To make a good argument you need to say WHY it's a fetus, not a baby...this is too important an issue to be decided by "because that's what everyone calls it!"

    The Bible says that we were woven together in our mother's that suggests life starts sometime before birth, but still doesn't answer the exactly when. Weaving is a process resulting in when is that something a life? A baby?

    Looking at science and theology, to me there seems to be two logical places.

    1. Conception, when the two different DNA of our parents get woven into one. This is scientifically the time when a new life begins, but there is still the question of the soul. Does the soul exist before thought is possible?

    2. When conciousness begans, which is around 20 weeks gestation. If you think the ability for thought as the time when the soul is imparted, this could be a theologically and scientifically reasonable time to consider life beginning).

    Based on science alone, birth seems like an inadequate place to consider the beginning of life. Babies have thought, show personality traits, etc. long before birth. Twins play with each other in the womb. My son would kick back when I tapped my stomach. Babies delivered as early as 21 weeks have survivied outside the womb. I think we can definately call a fetus a "baby" past 20 weeks.

    But even if the fetus before 20 weeks is just a body waiting for a soul...we have respect for bodies which have died (there are laws against desecrating a body)...shouldn't we have even more respect for a body which is forming for a soul to inhabit? I'm not saying abortion shouldn't be allowed for any reason before 20 weeks (if the life of the mother is at risk, for example)...but I think even pre-20 week abortion should not be taken lightly or done without very good reason.

    1. Gale, please read the post you just commented on. Because a fetus doesn't become a baby. Your whole concept is starting off on the wrong foot!

      As for what the Bible says- being "woven" means nothing more than that God creates us- which you should already know.

  24. PS: I'm very tired of the "but you accept capitol punishment" come back from pro-Choicers. As a nation we recognize the difference between killing innocent life (killing someone just because we want to), killing for self-defence, and capitol punishment (which is not done by an individual but done BY the goverment ONLY AFTER a person is tried and convicted during a long process with various chances for appeal). Capitol punishment is not the same thing at all as killing an innocent it all comes back to this: Is that fetus a person or not?

  25. Pardon me, Christian Prochoicer, but War and all that aside, down to what you are actually getting at in this post and with your name; it appears you seem to acknowledge Jesus' status, but not his teaching or that which he grew up with. This leads me to the view that you are in no better position than many of his contemporaries, seeing, without seeing, and hearing without hearing the truth of God's nature and laws. I do not know how you could love or trust a god like that... This is SO sad. I once also had an non-correct view of God, but this led me to wish nothing to do with 'him'. Luckily he chased me, and spoke in my heart language to change my heart and mind towards him... I hope and pray he does this for you.

    1. Actually, the teachings of Jesus are WHY I'm prochoice. So I believe you have wrongly judged me.

  26. In the jewish faith then as now, conception is the start of life.
    It appears that you, like all of us have some things to face.

    Romans 12:1-3 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

    3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.

    I'd encourage you to Get to know the teachings and law this Jesus you call messiah and God's son followed. You may just find this changes your mind and stance.

  27. I'm glad to hear someone saying this. We get tied up in all the irrelevant parts of this argument, when the fact is that there is such a thing as society supported murder and we just don't call it murder in those cases. War, self defense, etc. Abortion: call it killing, call it society sanctioned murder, it doesn't matter. No one can force a woman to go through a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Period.