Home - List All Discussions

POLL: Is it okay to use the term "baby" in an abortion debate?

(On a forum where you actually debate issues, of course)

by: yoda

This is for prolifers and prochoicer both, of course. I expect many prochoicers that post here would probably not have to deal with that term.

reply from: sander

Well, no one will ever be able to accuse you of "shifting" the ground on this one....but, I hold the option to withdrawl that comment, 'cause ya just never know since we're not really debating and maybe no proaborts will say anything and there won't be a reason to be accused of shifting the ground or stacking the deck or asking dumb questions, no reason to defend the proaborts then...or something like that, good grief!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, what she said!

reply from: jujujellybean

what he said that she said first...if that makes sense.
Seriously, baby is a dictionary term.
Ba-by:
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
human fetus, to be exact thank you. If the dictionary can say it, why can't we???

reply from: sander

Yoda will have alot better things to say about that than I, but it could be because it topples their arguments and makes them out to be cold hearted people???

reply from: xnavy

i select the first one, baby for unborn and born.

reply from: jujujellybean

probably Sander. That would hurt business, and what would they do without their nice furs and hummers?

reply from: yoda

Pretty much, yeah. When the word "baby" is used, then the logical conclusion is that abortion kills a baby. And they don't want to hear, see, or think about that in any way. They know that the very concept of "baby killing" is poison to their cause. They know that the phrase "baby killing" turns people off badly, and hurts them in the public opinion polls, so they fight with all their might to keep anyone from saying it.
Well, they're not going to silence me, and I hope none of your will yield to their pressure. Keep on repeating it every chance you get, abortion kills babies.

reply from: sander

Pretty much, yeah. When the word "baby" is used, then the logical conclusion is that abortion kills a baby. And they don't want to hear, see, or think about that in any way. They know that the very concept of "baby killing" is poison to their cause. They know that the phrase "baby killing" turns people off badly, and hurts them in the public opinion polls, so they fight with all their might to keep anyone from saying it.
Well, they're not going to silence me, and I hope none of your will yield to their pressure. Keep on repeating it every chance you get, abortion kills babies.
They're not silencng me either, Yoda. Women carry human babies.
And to think that there are pro-lifers who would want to concede this point, that boggles my mind more than the admitted pro-abort arguing against the FACTS.
If we give them that ground....what's the point thereafter?

reply from: yoda

Exactly. If we give in on that, then we have no real moral ground left to stand on. If abortion doesn't kill a baby, then what's our problem?

reply from: yoda

I notice that no one has voted "no" as of yet.....

reply from: xnavy

i don't see any prochoicer response on the thread

reply from: sander

They can't. Makes them look like ninnys.
But, no doubt they tell themselves they're above it all.

reply from: faithman

They can't. Makes them look like ninnys.
But, no doubt they tell themselves they're above it all.
Since when has hell been elivated above it all?

reply from: sander

Ew, I know that answer!
Since abortion became legal.

reply from: nancyu

Check out my signature!

reply from: yoda

Good one, Nancyu. Welcome to the forum!

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

My wife is 5 months pregnant. We often tell our 2 year old and other young children that there is a baby in mommy's tummy. It never occurs to me to say anything other than she is carrying a baby. Should I say she has a mass of parasitic cells that may achieve personhood one day?

reply from: yoda

No, it is wrong to lie to children.
And I see we have not a single "no" vote yet.... interesting.... since at least one prolifer has expressed reservations about using that word.....

reply from: nancyu

Thank you for welcoming me!
(also what an unborn baby might say, if it could)

reply from: cracrat

Yes it is fine to use baby, child, infant, child, toddler, juvenile or any other word you like in the debate. Those who are unsure of their attitudes/position will most likely not want to get involved, particularly given the amount of mud-slinging that goes on here. Those who know their own minds will wade in regardless of the parental emotions many people will be deliberately trying to stir up with use of such words.

reply from: yoda

Ah, so you are now disparaging "parental emotions"?
You want all parents to be cold, hard, unfeeling..... like most proaborts?

reply from: sander

Ah, so you are now disparaging "parental emotions"?
You want all parents to be cold, hard, unfeeling..... like most proaborts?
Amazing what lengths they will go to in order to justify abortion.
Is there any other debate where the use of one simple word is so stridently opposed?
How dare we try and humanize the child.

reply from: NewMom

Heck yes! Call it a baby, because that's what it is! You wouldn't confuse an ostrich with a lizard would you? Oh wait, we're speaking to the pro-aborts!

reply from: GratiaPlena

Should we call the victims in Darfur 'homosapiens' instead of 'people' if we're not going to call the unborn by their proper name- 'baby'?

reply from: faithman

HHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!Hey New Mom. Glad to see you back. I hope things are well. [lizard;snicker snicker] Ya them borties ain't changed a bit. They are SSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOO willingly stupid, that it is getting harder for them to hind the fact.

reply from: NewMom

HHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!Hey New Mom. Glad to see you back. I hope things are well. [lizard;snicker snicker] Ya them borties ain't changed a bit. They are SSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOO willingly stupid, that it is getting harder for them to hind the fact.
Hi to you too. We can't sit around all day and say that a cat is a dog, or a loofa is a bird, it is what it is, unless you're sooo cold and have conditioned yourself not to feel.

reply from: cracrat

You could do. You would be completely correct. Probably more correct since you'd be distinguishing them from any other branch of the human evolutionary tree (sorry creationists). But others would probably find it a bit wierd.

reply from: GratiaPlena

You could do. You would be completely correct. Probably more correct since you'd be distinguishing them from any other branch of the human evolutionary tree (sorry creationists). But others would probably find it a bit wierd.
Why would 'homosapiens' be more correct than 'people'?

reply from: itsmychoice

to yodavatar: interesting reply about saying that it is wrong to lie to children...and very random since GodsLaw4Us2Live did not mention anything about telling their children a lie. and since you say it is wrong to lie to children, what do you say when a child asks you about santa claus? do you tell them the truth, that santa is a lie?
And what is wrong with using "fetus" or "embryo" since that is what you are fighting for. It seems as though you prefer "baby" because the connotation surrounding the word conjures an image of an infant.
Being pro-lifers, you prefer to use "baby" because it automatically puts you at a morally higher standard because you say, "I'm fighting for unborn babies' lives!"
Saying "I'm fighting for embryos' lives!" just does not have enough power behind it, i guess

reply from: itsmychoice

it seems kind of ridiculous to have this poll question on a pro-life site since the votes will obviously be biased

reply from: nancyu

From http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/abortion.html

"POSTHUMOUS DEHUMANIZATION
The campaign to impugn the humanity of both the "unwhite" and "unborn" can follow its victims even into their graves. On August 4, 1964, the bodies of three murdered civil rights workers were unearthed near Philadelphia, Mississippi. The parents of the white activists, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner wanted their sons buried beside their black co-worker James Chaney. That, however, was forbidden by Mississippi' s segregation laws. According to the book Eyes On The Prize, Juan Williams, Penguin, 1988, page 235, Chaney was buried alone in a black cemetery.
Virtually the same thing happened to the unborn children, more than twenty years later. The July 3, 1984 Los Angeles Times reported:
More than 16,000 fetuses stored by Los Angeles County since they were found in a repossessed shipping bin in 1982 cannot be given burial as human remains, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.
The Los Angeles Herald, on July 10, 1984, editorialized:
Truth is, the pro-abortion litigants -- and the Court of Appeals -- wouldn't be satisfied with even a non-sectarian burial. They object to the fetuses being buried at all [favoring instead, incineration as medical waste], because that would seem to support anti-abortionists' claims that the fetuses are, or were, human beings."
They are babies.

reply from: sander

OMG!
The babies were considered medical WASTE! That's so wrong on so many levels.
Common decency evades these people.
And we have people like itsmychoice wondering why we object to the de-humanization of children in the womb.
But, they KNOW FULL WELL that if the baby is given just an ounce of humanity they lose their government sanctioned right to be cold blooded murderers.
So, they fight it tooth and nail no matter that it makes them look like the cold blooded murderers they are.
Apparently the right to murder helpless victims is addicting, why else do they refuse to give it up.

reply from: 4given

Santa is a lie?.. Seriously how old are you? We have always told our children the truth- about everything they may ask- even if it is a horrible truth. My 4 year old children knew what abortion was. Do you? Have you aborted? What happens during an abortion? What are the risks to a woman? How many different abortion techniques are there?
Use of the word "baby" is calling an unborn child what it is. Have you spoken to any pregnant women that refer to their unborn child as anything other than "my baby.. the baby.." etc.?
No. Calling a human child a "baby" is actually referring to it as who and what it is- (My son suggests the link Teresa used for spaceman.. I tend to agree.) Power? I think you are confused. I do hope you understand what it is you support and why. You can explain that, right?
I still can't help to laugh at the idiocy of this argument. My son asked me a few times to edit in the word "bonehead"..acknowledging that many actually be uneducated when it comes to the abortion facts.. How is it a pre-teen is morally equipped with a backbone and values that supercede the generation before him?

reply from: carolemarie

i vote for baby, since that is what it is....I feel the other side should have to be honest and call it a developing human embryo or a developing human fetus if they refuse to use the "emotionally" charged word "baby"
Who has ever gone to a embryo shower?
Carolemarie

reply from: cracrat

You could do. You would be completely correct. Probably more correct since you'd be distinguishing them from any other branch of the human evolutionary tree (sorry creationists). But others would probably find it a bit wierd.
Why would 'homosapiens' be more correct than 'people'?
Because it would distinguish them from the other members of the human family such as Homo habilis, H. ergaster, H. antecessor, H. neanderthalenis and the like. Many of these, particularly the last one, could walk past you in the street and you wouldn't even notice because they are so similar in appearence. They are all 'people', but the people suffering in Darfur are all Homo sapiens.

reply from: yoda

Exactly!
Let's call our news sources and DEMAND that they stop saying "people" and start saying "Homo sapiens". We must have POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

reply from: yoda

Because it would distinguish them from the other members of the human family such as Homo habilis, H. ergaster, H. antecessor, H. neanderthalenis and the like. Many of these, particularly the last one, could walk past you in the street and you wouldn't even notice because they are so similar in appearence. .
NO, THEY COULD NOT........ because all those "members" are EXTINCT!!
What a crock and a sham of an argument..... incredible!!

reply from: yoda

itsmychoice, we have something called a "quote button" here on this forum..... learn to use it and I will answer your questions. Oh, btw, I never told my child that santa was real to begin with......
Yet another strawman argument.... since NO ONE has said there is anything "wrong" with using developmental terms.... is your position really so extremely weak that you must make up opponents to defeat?
Right on both counts.
Oh, by the way, it also happens to be TRUE that we are fighting for babies lives. But the "truth" doesn't have any priority with you, does it?

reply from: yoda

A paper in LA actually said that? Will wonders never cease?
Yeah, in fact the proaborts are so rabid in their positions that they go ballistic when anyone even wants to bury the ashes respectfully...... like one Catholic church in Colorado was doing. The baby killers raised h*ll about that one.

reply from: cracrat

Because it would distinguish them from the other members of the human family such as Homo habilis, H. ergaster, H. antecessor, H. neanderthalenis and the like. Many of these, particularly the last one, could walk past you in the street and you wouldn't even notice because they are so similar in appearence. .
NO, THEY COULD NOT........ because all those "members" are EXTINCT!!
What a crock and a sham of an argument..... incredible!!
You're just willfully disagreeing with everything I say aren't you?
I am abundantly aware those other species are extinct. But if a Neanderthal Man were to walk past you in the street you'd probably not look twice.

reply from: sander

You don't leave him any choice with that kind of an agrument. Neanderthal man, for heavens sake!

reply from: cracrat

You don't leave him any choice with that kind of an agrument. Neanderthal man, for heavens sake!
GratiaPlena asked if it would be correct to describe the victims in Darfur as Homo sapiens rather than people. I said that would be correct since it would describe them precisely and distinguish them from any other species of people. Though it would be wierd. Yodavater decided to tear into me.
For Yoda:
peo·ple /?pip?l/ [pee-puhl] noun, plural: human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
hu·man (hy??'m?n) n. : A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens
be·ing /?bi??/ [bee-ing] noun: a living thing
My underlining for emphasis, all from http://dictionary.reference.com
The question marks are because the text generator can't cope with some of the special characters.

reply from: yoda

But we're talking about REALITY here...... not science fiction!!
Our use of LANGUAGE is based on everyday REALITY......NOT science fiction!!
How goofy can you get?
NO ONE cares about Neanderthal Man..... he's dead and gone..... just like your silly arguments!

reply from: yoda

Very good.... now what does that all mean to you?

reply from: GratiaPlena

I didn't ask if it would be correct. I already knew that. What I was asking was, should we start calling them 'homo sapiens' instead of 'people'? Obviously the government does not recognize them as anything more than animals, so you could say that the term 'person' is not universally established with them. That being said, since not all people think they're people, should we start calling them something else?
Hell, no! To be honest, I don't care what anyone thinks they are. I will call them people.
Same with the unborn. Just because the term 'baby' for them is not a universally established name, I'll continue to use it, because it's the plain and simple truth. If some bigots are going to make a fuss about it, tough.
Using the terms 'fetus' and 'homo sapien', while both correct terms, would dehumanize the very victims we are trying to protect. Saying "Save the homo sapiens" would make the victims in Darfur seem like animals, and so would the term 'fetus'.

reply from: yoda

Ah yep.... you got it. Or, some kind of "body part".... which just happens to be what a lot of them try to claim we are anyway, before birth..... just happens to work out that way, I guess..........right??
I note that the poll result is 13 to one now. It's easy to guess who the "one" is, of course. Looks like we have a majority decision.......

reply from: yoda

Now it's 13 to 2, I guess another proabort has chimed in.

reply from: cracrat

I've actually only just voted (you were refering to me weren't you). Makes it 14 to 2, and one idiot who can't read.

reply from: yoda

No, I figured you'd vote "yes".

reply from: nancyu

This really happened today. I am a housekeeper. When the lady of the house that I was cleaning came home, she was telling her young son about a charity she was considering contributing to. This charity helped children with cleft palate to receive surgery to correct the problem. Here is what she explained to her son, "It's something that happens to a baby...no, not a baby, what is it called?... before it is a baby, when it is still in the womb..."
"It's still a baby" I replied. But she didn't hear me.
"A fetus Oh, that's right, it happens when it is a fetus." sigh.
April 7,2008

reply from: nancyu

Feeling outnumbered IMC? How does it feel to be in the monority?

reply from: yoda

Apparently you had the misfortune to run into a dyed in the wool proabort. They can be found in various places, but never in libraries, because that's where they keep the dictionaries..... and they hate those.

reply from: jujujellybean

it's taking a poll of someone's opinion. how is that biased??? so everyone's opinion but yours is biased? weird...

reply from: nancyu

Apparently you had the misfortune to run into a dyed in the wool proabort. They can be found in various places, but never in libraries, because that's where they keep the dictionaries..... and they hate those.

haha, but she actually spends alot of time in libraries. She is a lawyer. But most books she reads are about saving the environment, and protecting endangered species (other than the human species of course.)

reply from: yoda

Then the next time you talk to her ask her to look up the word "person" in one of those big ole reference desk dictionaries. And stand back and watch the expression on her face fall.......

reply from: yoda

I'm bumping this thread because I don't think that all the proaborts have responded to the challenge yet, but I don't want to use the word "bump" because that seems to upset them, and you know it's wrong to ever upset a proabort, right?

reply from: yoda

Yes, I've decided not to use the term "bump" because that might upset a proabort......er, prochoicer..... and that's a no-no, you know?

reply from: Faramir

This site works so slow sometimes, and it seems like a waste of time to click on a thread expecting new content, and instead seeing "bump" or some other excuse to for a poster to self-promote his own thread and keep it at the top. I can understand doing it occasionally, but this particular thread is mostly "bump" or some variation.
Is it your intent to just bump this thread and not add content? If you would kindly let me know, I can decide whether to bother looking at it in the future.

reply from: Faramir

This site works so slow sometimes, and it seems like a waste of time to click on a thread expecting new content, and instead seeing "bump" or some other excuse to for a poster to self-promote his own thread and keep it at the top. I can understand doing it occasionally, but this particular thread is mostly "bump" or some variation.
Is it your intent to just bump this thread and not add content? If you would kindly let me know, I can decide whether to bother looking at it in the future.

reply from: yoda

I really can't say..... but I know I won't let it disappear anytime soon, even if that requires bumping it from time to time. It's just too important to me.
Oh, btw, it's 16 to 3 now...... in favor of "babies".

reply from: yoda

I think I'll make this my last bump on this thread..... at 16 to 3 it's obvious that only one prolifer may have voted "no" on it, and no logic has been presented to show why it isn't "okay" to use that term in any discussion, at any time, or under any format.
Given the history of that word, I think it's ridiculous beyond description to allege that it ought not to be used in deference to the dishonest claims of the bloody proabort baby killers of this world....... we ought never to honor any such anti-life deceptions.

reply from: Faramir

I admire that you're able to show this restraint. It must have been very exciting for you to repeatedly bump your own thread to the top of the list.
I think you might be presuming too much here. I don't know of any prolifer who voted "no." Of course, I abstained from voting. In my religion it's not only a sin to masturbate, but it's also a sin to encourage someone else to do it.

reply from: faithman

I'll take up the slack for ya!!!! Bumpty bump bump!!!

reply from: yoda

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me at all. When it comes to making a passionate, determined defense of unborn children, "abstention" fits your style.

reply from: Faramir

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me at all. When it comes to making a passionate, determined defense of unborn children, "abstention" fits your style.
If you think that kissing your butt on a forum is somehow defending babies, you are seriously deluded, dude, and have a very inflated opinion of yourself.

reply from: yoda

Please... none of your gutter talk..... you're embarrassing me!!

reply from: sander

Exactly, Yoda!
The lengths some will go to distort the truth and then GIVE in to that distortion serves no purpose other than to come off looking like the "good guy".
Heaven forbid that the unvarnished truth be used to defeat the arguments, must not upset the "bloody proabort baby killers"...oops, did I just do a no-no.

reply from: Faramir

Can you elaborate on this and give an actual example of it?

reply from: faithman

Can you elaborate on this and give an actual example of it?
Try just about every post you have cluttered this forum up with? The proof is in your self indulgent pudding!!!!

reply from: faithman

Oh ya! almost forgot! BUMP!!!!!!!!!

reply from: teddybearhamster

WHAT A SUPRISE! HITLER NEEDS THE LAST WORD.

reply from: faithman

WHAT A SUPRISE! HITLER NEEDS THE LAST WORD.
What a suprise the cowardly little death scans has to show how stupid her punky little butt is. And call someone something to cover the fact that that is what they are. Only nazis advocate abortion on demand.

reply from: teddybearhamster

WHAT A SUPRISE! HITLER NEEDS THE LAST WORD.
What a suprise the cowardly little death scans has to show how stupid her punky little butt is. And call someone something to cover the fact that that is what they are. Only nazis advocate abortion on demand.
you're the nazi who's forcing your will and religion on women.

reply from: faithman

WHAT A SUPRISE! HITLER NEEDS THE LAST WORD.
What a suprise the cowardly little death scans has to show how stupid her punky little butt is. And call someone something to cover the fact that that is what they are. Only nazis advocate abortion on demand.
you're the nazi who's forcing your will and religion on women.
And you are the stupid scanc who is forcing death on an innocent womb child. That is the true nazi.

reply from: teddybearhamster

WHAT A SUPRISE! HITLER NEEDS THE LAST WORD.
What a suprise the cowardly little death scans has to show how stupid her punky little butt is. And call someone something to cover the fact that that is what they are. Only nazis advocate abortion on demand.
you're the nazi who's forcing your will and religion on women.
And you are the stupid scanc who is forcing death on an innocent womb child. That is the true nazi.
you condone my death.

reply from: faithman

WHAT A SUPRISE! HITLER NEEDS THE LAST WORD.
What a suprise the cowardly little death scans has to show how stupid her punky little butt is. And call someone something to cover the fact that that is what they are. Only nazis advocate abortion on demand.
you're the nazi who's forcing your will and religion on women.
And you are the stupid scanc who is forcing death on an innocent womb child. That is the true nazi.
you condone my death.
And I condone your death how? But you most assuredly condone, and advocate the death of the helpless just so you can feel powerful. Your force your choice of death on the womb child because you hate them. I say would should protect them from killer Nazi death scancs like you.

reply from: teddybearhamster

WHAT A SUPRISE! HITLER NEEDS THE LAST WORD.
What a suprise the cowardly little death scans has to show how stupid her punky little butt is. And call someone something to cover the fact that that is what they are. Only nazis advocate abortion on demand.
you're the nazi who's forcing your will and religion on women.
And you are the stupid scanc who is forcing death on an innocent womb child. That is the true nazi.
you condone my death.
And I condone your death how? But you most assuredly condone, and advocate the death of the helpless just so you can feel powerful. Your force your choice of death on the womb child because you hate them. I say would should protect them from killer Nazi death scancs like you.
when i was forced to have my son, i died. my future died. any joy i had died. i'm physically present but i'm dead and have been for ten years.

reply from: faithman

WHAT A SUPRISE! HITLER NEEDS THE LAST WORD.
What a suprise the cowardly little death scans has to show how stupid her punky little butt is. And call someone something to cover the fact that that is what they are. Only nazis advocate abortion on demand.
you're the nazi who's forcing your will and religion on women.
And you are the stupid scanc who is forcing death on an innocent womb child. That is the true nazi.
you condone my death.
And I condone your death how? But you most assuredly condone, and advocate the death of the helpless just so you can feel powerful. Your force your choice of death on the womb child because you hate them. I say would should protect them from killer Nazi death scancs like you.
when i was forced to have my son, i died. my future died. any joy i had died. i'm physically present but i'm dead and have been for ten years.
Then what do you have to loose to seek Him who raises things from the dead? I gues joy and peace is to big a price to pay for all that hate you seem to be hanging onto.

reply from: teddybearhamster

if god does exists he must hate me for giving me this life. i'm not going to seek one who hates me that much.

reply from: faithman

if god does exists he must hate me for giving me this life. i'm not going to seek one who hates me that much.
We were all borned with the wrath of God abidding on us. We were all born spiritually dead and the enemy of God. We all were born with feelings of worthlessness, because without him we are. Ultimately you are going to have to admit, like all of us must do at some time, that by birth we are God haters, and His enemies. But while we were yet His enemies, He took on human flesh, lived a perfect life, became the sin of mankind, and died in our place to apease the debt of justice stacked up against us. God has a love He wants to share with us. But as long as we reject the Lord Jesus Christ, then our sin debt goes unpaid and His wrath abides on us. We only have this short life to get it right. Then either comes the joy of eternal perfect love, or the torment of eternal lonely darkness. That is the real choice, not killing womb children to feel powerful, and spit is God's face by mocking His gift of life.

reply from: teddybearhamster

if god does exists he must hate me for giving me this life. i'm not going to seek one who hates me that much.
We were all borned with the wrath of God abidding on us. We were all born spiritually dead and the enemy of God. We all were born with feelings of worthlessness, because without him we are. Ultimately you are going to have to admit, like all of us must do at some time, that by birth we are God haters, and His enemies. But while we were yet His enemies, He took on human flesh, lived a perfect life, became the sin of mankind, and died in our place to apease the debt of justice stacked up against us. God has a love He wants to share with us. But as long as we reject the Lord Jesus Christ, then our sin debt goes unpaid and His wrath abides on us. We only have this short life to get it right. Then either comes the joy of eternal perfect love, or the torment of eternal lonely darkness. That is the real choice, not killing womb children to feel powerful, and spit is God's face by mocking His gift of life.
look, i understand you have your religion and if that's good for your life, great. i used to believe but god showed me time and again he hates me and never answered a single prayer i ever had. he turned his back on me, so i turned mine on him. can we just leave the whole religion thing at that please?

reply from: faithman

if god does exists he must hate me for giving me this life. i'm not going to seek one who hates me that much.
We were all borned with the wrath of God abidding on us. We were all born spiritually dead and the enemy of God. We all were born with feelings of worthlessness, because without him we are. Ultimately you are going to have to admit, like all of us must do at some time, that by birth we are God haters, and His enemies. But while we were yet His enemies, He took on human flesh, lived a perfect life, became the sin of mankind, and died in our place to apease the debt of justice stacked up against us. God has a love He wants to share with us. But as long as we reject the Lord Jesus Christ, then our sin debt goes unpaid and His wrath abides on us. We only have this short life to get it right. Then either comes the joy of eternal perfect love, or the torment of eternal lonely darkness. That is the real choice, not killing womb children to feel powerful, and spit is God's face by mocking His gift of life.
look, i understand you have your religion and if that's good for your life, great. i used to believe but god showed me time and again he hates me and never answered a single prayer i ever had. he turned his back on me, so i turned mine on him. can we just leave the whole religion thing at that please?
I dont do religion. I do a covenant relationship bought in blood, and offered in love. He is right now showing you how to over come all this crap you are throwing up in our faces. But this is a divine appointment. You are here but God's plan. You have come accross me because He has a love for you, and a perfect plan for your life. He has brought you here to be exposed to the truth. Truth is a person, and His name is Jesus Christ the Lord. You can remain dead in your hatful sin, or you can surrender your life to the Lord of love and be made complete. That ain't religion, that is love birthed in faith. You already said you were dead, then there is nothing to lose but yur misery if you surrender to Him who raises things from the dead. He thought you were valuable enough to die for. Why resist that kind of love?

reply from: teddybearhamster

god has never shared love with me. he gave me to my 'mother'. that proves how hateful god is.
look, i understand you have your religion and if that's good for your life, great. i used to believe but god showed me time and again he hates me and never answered a single prayer i ever had. he turned his back on me, so i turned mine on him. can we just leave the whole religion thing at that please?
I dont do religion. I do a covenant relationship bought in blood, and offered in love. He is right now showing you how to over come all this crap you are throwing up in our faces. But this is a divine appointment. You are here but God's plan. You have come accross me because He has a love for you, and a perfect plan for your life. He has brought you here to be exposed to the truth. Truth is a person, and His name is Jesus Christ the Lord. You can remain dead in your hatful sin, or you can surrender your life to the Lord of love and be made complete. That ain't religion, that is love birthed in faith. You already said you were dead, then there is nothing to lose but yur misery if you surrender to Him who raises things from the dead. He thought you were valuable enough to die for. Why resist that kind of love?

reply from: faithman

God is sharing His love with you right now. He is standing at the door of your heart and knocking. Please do yourself a favor and answer the door. I very rarely try to reason with death scancs as anyone who sends very much time here knows. But I am not my own. I have been bought by a price. I am subject to Him who bled out for me. And He has told me to contend for your soul just as hard as I do for the babies. God knows what you have been thru, and He wants to make it right for you. But you have to surrender your life to Him. He is not a used car. You don't take Him out for a test drive. You don't "try" God. you choice to give yourself to Him lock stock and barrel. The Lord has now placed you on my heart. [dad gone it! I was having ssssssoooo much fun calling you names]. When I pray the Lord answers. He is about to shower your life with blessings. But know this. This is the last call. He will not always strive with man. Sheesh!!! Now I am going to be up all night fasting and praying. But the Lord Jesus Christ says you are worth it. I guess He died for trailor trash girls too, huh?

reply from: teddybearhamster

thanks for feeling compelled to pray for me or whatever but don't waste your time. if i may ask why do you like to call names? personally i don't like to do it but i admit that i do resort to calling names when i feel offended, hurt and such. i don't like that about myself.

reply from: faithman

thanks for feeling compelled to pray for me or whatever but don't waste your time. if i may ask why do you like to call names? personally i don't like to do it but i admit that i do resort to calling names when i feel offended, hurt and such. i don't like that about myself.
Because I am a defender of womb children. And that is exactly how I feel about those who would kill such helpless little persons. And don't thank me. It is God who is doing it thru me because He is trying to reach you. I find it somewhat humorous that He would use me to pursue you. I guess He never gets tired of making me look foolish. But He says this one is special, and He has a mighty work to be done thru you. I have no doubt that you will be His very soon, or He would not have me mess with it. I don't waist time with God haters, I would rather just call em names and be done with it. but you, my dear, are very special indeed. The special ones never realize it until they give thier lives to Him to do as He pleases.

reply from: teddybearhamster

that's funny. i don't think there is anything special about me. for whatever reason my daughter lizzie does love me and i can't understand why.

reply from: faithman

that's funny. i don't think there is anything special about me. for whatever reason my daughter lizzie does love me and i can't understand why.
Because little children are close to God. They see thru the muck and see value just like God does. The love you have for your child is magified billions of times in our Heavenly Father's Love for us. but we must become a legitimate child thru Christ. As long as you remain on the wrong side of Him, it is wrath city. Your heart has not been seared shut yet. God is still wooing you, and He uses Lizzie to draw you to Him. God use the lowly. He uses the foolish to confound the wise. He came to a manger, not a palace. And when it comes to hearts, He sometimes choses "trailor trash" to pour out great abundance of blessings to show the world His soveriegn grace. For by Grace are we saved from the evil of this world, by simple trusting surrendered faith, And that not of our selves, it is a love gift to those who will recieve it with thanks giving. Not of religeuos works, lest the self righteous could boast just how good they are. I deserve nothing but His wrath. But what a great privilage it is to me, that He would use me as an instrument to pursue you with. I am but a mere man who will always fail. But I trust a MAN who can never fail!!!!

reply from: survivor73

yes. it is perfectly ok to use the term baby in an abortion debate. that is what it is a human life created by God at the momement of conception. to believe it is something else would be in support of the pro-choicers. baby, child, or human life are the best terms to use when debating abortion for it is thier life that is being debated.

reply from: yoda

Thanks, survivor73, and welcome to the forum.

reply from: sander

It never ceases to amaze me to see such vile comptempt of human life on display.
It also never ceases to disgust me and hope it never does.

reply from: sander

All I was commenting on was the comfort in which you are able to support murderering a defensless child in the womb.
And don't forget, I at least give you credit for being honest.

reply from: yoda

It's very rare to see a prolifer complaining about anyone's use of terms, but very common to see a proabort doing it. Use any term you like, just don't attack our usages and we'll get along fine.

reply from: nancyu

nancyu
VP
Posts: 4277
Joined: 03/30/2008
Well dog gone, it's my prolifeamerica "birthday"
Happy Birthday to me, and to Cracrat, too!
cracrat
Senior Executive
Posts: 1205
Joined: 03/30/2008

reply from: nancyu

What? No presents? No tea and chocolates?
This is a great old thread BTW!

reply from: BossMomma

Baby, fetus,child all synonyms for human offspring. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

reply from: Faramir

Explain to the newbs exactly what you mean by "tea and chocolates" and please tell the entire story if you care anything about the truth and fairness.

reply from: yoda

They are having "tea parties" all across the country, weenie, and nancy is just adding chocolates to make them more enjoyable. You're soooo predictable, all we have to do is say the secret words and you stand up and bark like a little feist doggie... have some tea and chocolates, and you'll feel all better.......

reply from: BossMomma

Fetus is medically and literarily synonymous with Baby and vice versa, it really doesn't matter which one you use. How's it going Xena? Long time no see.

reply from: BossMomma

I could send you some Lipton and a Hershey bar if it'll make you feel better.

reply from: yoda

Bumping this thread to alert the newbies that most of us think it's okay to say "baby" in this debate.

reply from: Shenanigans

Me, I don't see a problem with NOT calling the unborn a baby, it doesn't make it any less human by calling it a foetus or embryo, its no dehumanizing then calling a 15 year old an adolescent, or a 90 year old as an elderly. Its just another term for human development. I like "unborn child" though, as child can include anyone under the age of 12, including those during gestation.

reply from: yoda

I don't think that our choices of which proper terminology to use ever rises to the level of being a "problem", but I do think that it demonstrates something about our thinking.
Those who use the technical terms for the stages of human development before birth tend to be rather cold and uncompassionate when it comes to babies and young children, in my experience. Thinking of very young humans in scientific terms is a pretty good indication that you have no warmth in your heart for them, IMO.

reply from: sander

I completely disagree about the use of "fetus" vs. "baby". To the open minded and those intellectually honest, the use of the term, "fetus" may sound innocent enough.
But, to those of us who have been following and studying the abortion debate since the early '70's know that term was chosen deliberatley, in order to de-humanize the child in the womb.
It's the same tactic used thru the centuries to de-humanize a segment of society in order for some to weild power and gain over the de-humanized population.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson explains this in detail in his writings.

reply from: carolemarie

sort of like calling people babykillers dehumanizes them......?

reply from: Faramir

Who said it had to be one or the other? Why not both?
There is nothing wrong with using a legitimate word, and I don't think the opposition should make us scared to use a perfectly good word like "fetus" when appropriate.

reply from: sander

You get more messed up as time goes by.
Those who KILL babies are.....hold on to your pointy hat....Baby KILLERS.
There's a world of difference between speaking the plain truth and DELIBERATLEY chosing words that will de-humanize children in the womb.
Have you ever read Dr. Barnard Nathanson?
Or do you just shoot off at the mouth without any knowledge all the time?
You might trying using the plain truth once in a while....God sure did.
2Corth. 1:13
Don't try to read between the lines or look for hidden meanings in this letter. We're writing PLAIN, UNEMBELLISHED, TRUTH, HOPING that you'll now see the WHOLE PICTURE as well as you've seen some of the details.

reply from: yoda

You don't think that "humans" kill babies?

reply from: yoda

We're all so grateful that you have decided to allow us to say "baby".
And we promise not to object when you say "fetus".
All square now?

reply from: faithman

We're all so grateful that you have decided to allow us to say "baby".
And we promise not to object when you say "fetus".
All square now?
What about the totally accurate term womb child? Has the self proclaimed pope of the forum approved of this term?

reply from: sander

You don't think that "humans" kill babies?
Of course she does, she's just too busy advocating for the killers of babies to admit it.
What a lousy thing to do.

reply from: Teresa18

Sure zygote, embryo, and fetus are these are scientifically correct words to describe a human being in a certain stage of development. The problem is that the opposition uses these terms to dehumanize the unborn child. When they use these terms, they use them in a way to make the unborn child seem less human, not as a human being. To appeal to the conscience and compassion of others, I prefer to use the also accurate term unborn child or unborn baby.

reply from: faithman

We're all so grateful that you have decided to allow us to say "baby".
And we promise not to object when you say "fetus".
All square now?
What about the totally accurate term womb child? Has the self proclaimed pope of the forum approved of this term?

reply from: yoda

Not so far. But there are many other terms he hasn't gotten to yet, so just be patient.

reply from: yoda

So do I. And to the charge that I try to "appeal to emotion", I plead forever and ever guilty, and proud to say so.
This debate/war is all about emotions. If one doesn't feel any emotion when considering the elective slaughter of an innocent unborn child, then they are perfect prochoice material.
If they feel repulsed, disgusted, and angry, then they will make good prolifers.

reply from: sander

Absolutley correct, Teresa.
The whole abortion movement set out to deliberately de-humanize the "unborn baby/child".
They conducted meetings on a regular basis to create a plan of attack to get their agenda passed.
They said themsleves if they did not de-humanize the child Americans would never fall for abortion rights.
Sadly, they were successful and to this day they are amazed that it hasn't completely won over all of Americans.
Why? Because there has been enough of us figthting by using PLAIN, UNEMBELLISHED TRUTH to refute their lies.

reply from: faithman

Absolutley correct, Teresa.
The whole abortion movement set out to deliberately de-humanize the "unborn baby/child".
They conducted meetings on a regular basis to create a plan of attack to get their agenda passed.
They said themsleves if they did not de-humanize the child Americans would never fall for abortion rights.
Sadly, they were successful and to this day they are amazed that it hasn't completely won over all of Americans.
Why? Because there has been enough of us figthting by using PLAIN, UNEMBELLISHED TRUTH to refute their lies.
Then you have the killer of three using the same language, making the same excuses, and has the audasity to say it is prolife. Go figure....

reply from: nancyu

I'm making a baked mac and cheese casserole, and it starts with a white sauce.
Did you ever make a white sauce?
You melt butter, stir in some flour salt and pepper, then you add milk and stir and stir and stir and stir and you wait and wait and wait and wait and stir and stir and wait for the milk to thicken and boil.
Sometimes you have to turn up the heat a little or else you will be waiting and stirring.....forever.
But. It's gonna be good...

reply from: Faramir

Absolutley correct, Teresa.
The whole abortion movement set out to deliberately de-humanize the "unborn baby/child".
They conducted meetings on a regular basis to create a plan of attack to get their agenda passed.
They said themsleves if they did not de-humanize the child Americans would never fall for abortion rights.
Sadly, they were successful and to this day they are amazed that it hasn't completely won over all of Americans.
Why? Because there has been enough of us figthting by using PLAIN, UNEMBELLISHED TRUTH to refute their lies.
Then you have the killer of three using the same language, making the same excuses, and has the audasity to say it is prolife. Go figure....
She saves babies, a**hole.
That means she sees the unborn as babies or she wouldn't go to so much work to save the hundreds she has saved, so put that in your anti-Catholic pipe and smoke it, and stop tearing down prolifers who care about babies and who actually save them from abortion.

reply from: nancyu

Sure she does...while simultaneously working (tooth and toenail) to keep abortion "legal"
P.S. Doesn't calling someone an "a** hole" go against your strict religious principles?

reply from: Faramir

Sure she does...while simultaneously working (tooth and toenail) to keep abortion "legal"
P.S. Doesn't calling someone an "a** hole" go against your strict religious principles?
It sure does go against my principles to use a word like that, but he doesn't hear regular language or reason, I'm afraid.
Sometimes I can just watch his bullying and then other times, I feel like I need to comment.
He serves the babies poorly by discrediting another prolifer, and by discrediting the very prolife Catholic Church, but maybe he's in this for himself.

reply from: faithman

Absolutley correct, Teresa.
The whole abortion movement set out to deliberately de-humanize the "unborn baby/child".
They conducted meetings on a regular basis to create a plan of attack to get their agenda passed.
They said themsleves if they did not de-humanize the child Americans would never fall for abortion rights.
Sadly, they were successful and to this day they are amazed that it hasn't completely won over all of Americans.
Why? Because there has been enough of us figthting by using PLAIN, UNEMBELLISHED TRUTH to refute their lies.
Then you have the killer of three using the same language, making the same excuses, and has the audasity to say it is prolife. Go figure....
She saves babies, a**hole.
That means she sees the unborn as babies or she wouldn't go to so much work to save the hundreds she has saved, so put that in your anti-Catholic pipe and smoke it, and stop tearing down prolifers who care about babies and who actually save them from abortion.
Only by her word, and we all know from this forum what that is worth. Just how do you intend to document all those "saves"?? And she has said most were because of our IAAP cards. So just where does the killer of three make the claim of hundreds saved anyway? Oh but that is right, we are supposed to believe you because you belong to the organization of the inquisition. the "faith" that killed boys because they named a dog after the pope. The "prolife" organization, who's pursed lipped little judas vowed to pay a bounty to rat out other pro-lifers to a baby hating government. And we are supposed to believe a little sissy boy who waisted our time and resources, and got free cards you never intended to use, huh butt nugget? You and your street walking friend are the ones with the credibility prob here. I have many testimonies on these very boards of babies saved with IAAP, including the ones claimed by the killer of three. Stick that in your pointy hat youth nazi pipe and smoke it!!

reply from: faithman

Absolutley correct, Teresa.
The whole abortion movement set out to deliberately de-humanize the "unborn baby/child".
They conducted meetings on a regular basis to create a plan of attack to get their agenda passed.
They said themsleves if they did not de-humanize the child Americans would never fall for abortion rights.
Sadly, they were successful and to this day they are amazed that it hasn't completely won over all of Americans.
Why? Because there has been enough of us figthting by using PLAIN, UNEMBELLISHED TRUTH to refute their lies.
Then you have the killer of three using the same language, making the same excuses, and has the audasity to say it is prolife. Go figure....
She saves babies, a**hole.
That means she sees the unborn as babies or she wouldn't go to so much work to save the hundreds she has saved, so put that in your anti-Catholic pipe and smoke it, and stop tearing down prolifers who care about babies and who actually save them from abortion.
Only by her word, and we all know from this forum what that is worth. Just how do you intend to document all those "saves"?? And she has said most were because of our IAAP cards. So just where does the killer of three make the claim of hundreds saved anyway? Oh but that is right, we are supposed to believe you because you belong to the organization of the inquisition. the "faith" that killed boys because they named a dog after the pope. The "prolife" organization, who's pursed lipped little judas vowed to pay a bounty to rat out other pro-lifers to a baby hating government. And we are supposed to believe a little sissy boy who waisted our time and resources, and got free cards you never intended to use, huh butt nugget? You and your street walking friend are the ones with the credibility prob here. I have many testimonies on these very boards of babies saved with IAAP, including the ones claimed by the killer of three. Stick that in your pointy hat youth nazi pipe and smoke it!!

reply from: 4given

I am sure it is wonderful.. I tend to use a lot of spices and garlic with every meal.. We should get together some month soon.. I will bring some torturelini and you smack and cheese.. Maybe we can picnic after our time and sensibilities are assaulted.. Typical day at the mill after all.. I would be blessed to meet with you again though.. Yeah time and patience generally produces the desired result. Right?

reply from: 4given

Try cornstarch instead of flour.. it blends evenly without compromising taste or texture..

reply from: yoda

Why save just the a**hole? Why not the whole baby?
BTW, I picked Sunday for your next big "I'm leaving this rat hole" announcement in our pool bet. Can you arrange for me to win this one?

reply from: yoda

By repeating it over and over?

reply from: faithman

By repeating it over and over?
Poor ole farty didn't want to respond to me post. May Haps his short pants got soiled.

reply from: yoda

Farty doesn't want to get into veracity and stuff like that, or the story about the young girl at the abortion clinic might come up. The one that was retracted as "made up", ya know?

reply from: faithman

Absolutley correct, Teresa.
The whole abortion movement set out to deliberately de-humanize the "unborn baby/child".
They conducted meetings on a regular basis to create a plan of attack to get their agenda passed.
They said themsleves if they did not de-humanize the child Americans would never fall for abortion rights.
Sadly, they were successful and to this day they are amazed that it hasn't completely won over all of Americans.
Why? Because there has been enough of us figthting by using PLAIN, UNEMBELLISHED TRUTH to refute their lies.
Then you have the killer of three using the same language, making the same excuses, and has the audasity to say it is prolife. Go figure....
She saves babies, a**hole.
That means she sees the unborn as babies or she wouldn't go to so much work to save the hundreds she has saved, so put that in your anti-Catholic pipe and smoke it, and stop tearing down prolifers who care about babies and who actually save them from abortion.
Only by her word, and we all know from this forum what that is worth. Just how do you intend to document all those "saves"?? And she has said most were because of our IAAP cards. So just where does the killer of three make the claim of hundreds saved anyway? Oh but that is right, we are supposed to believe you because you belong to the organization of the inquisition. the "faith" that killed boys because they named a dog after the pope. The "prolife" organization, who's pursed lipped little judas vowed to pay a bounty to rat out other pro-lifers to a baby hating government. And we are supposed to believe a little sissy boy who waisted our time and resources, and got free cards you never intended to use, huh butt nugget? You and your street walking friend are the ones with the credibility prob here. I have many testimonies on these very boards of babies saved with IAAP, including the ones claimed by the killer of three. Stick that in your pointy hat youth nazi pipe and smoke it!!

reply from: jid

As many of you seem to delight in the dictionary, pick up a medical one and see 'Foetus/Fetus'
You may see detail along the lines of... developing human form from ~2months subsequent to conception to BIRTH..
So... to answer the question, using the term 'baby' in abortion debate is, to the standards of many of you, either misleading, inaccurate or manifestly incorrect.

reply from: yoda

What a sad, lonely person you must be, living in total denial like that.....
MSN-Encarta Online: ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby
Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby
iNFOPLEASE.com ba.by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html
INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|

reply from: jid

Hell, I'm just throwing dictionary bits around.. You seem to respond well to this type of information.. As you have proven.
Still, boils down to the fact that dictionaries are not used to settle arguments.. I'm well aware that the word 'baby' is used to describe the foetus. I'm also very well aware of the reason that this is done. More importantly though, I'm aware that this is scientifically inaccurate.
Those websites you quoted, type 'Foetus' or, if your a fan of the bastardised spelling 'fetus' into them and see what comes up..
Shock! Horror! Can it be?!? But how can there be more than one word attributed to the same thing... Crazy.. isn't it? This is why throwing about dictionary definitions settles nothing. You're proving nothing aside from the fact that you can read.. Selectively..
You choose to use the colloquial term, I choose to use the scientifically accurate term..

reply from: yoda

Sez who? When the argument centers around the meaning of a word, what better source is there?
NO, it is not, because it is NOT a "scientific term". Use you head once in a while..... terms of the vernacular have NO unique scientific definition.
Did you mean "more than one definition"? Most words do, you know?
Then you won't be repeating your claim that "baby" is not a valid term for unborn humans?

reply from: jid

Firstly, no I won't be "repeating" a claim that baby is not a valid term, primarily because I didn't make such a claim. When did I make a claim of 'validity'? Or are you using your pitiful skills of interpretation again? My statement is that 'baby' is inaccurate, thus incorrect, not invalid. Foetus being more accurate. Do you need clarification of why this is?
Secondly, when did I state that any word was a solely 'scientific term', if one is commenting on "using your head" you may want to rub those two (optimistic) brain cells of yours together, re-read the post and acknowledge that I stated it was a scientifically ACCURATE term.. Another fine display of your selective reading ability.
Since when was this post about the "meaning" of a word? I guess I spoke too soon when I insinuated you could read at all. "Is it OK to use the term 'baby'..." isn't about the meaning of a word, but it's applicability and accuracy within a determined context. Examine the phrasing. Is the question, "What does the word 'baby' mean? (see dictionary for answer)"?
No..

reply from: yoda

Again, you go from idiotic to asinine. "Fetus" is only accurate for an unborn baby from 8 weeks to delivery. Before that it is an EMBRYO!! "Unborn baby" is TOTALLY accurate for ALL NINE MONTHS!! Can you not come up with a flimsier excuse?
And yet, it is NOT........ (see above).
Yes, my mistake. I assumed that you had the intelligence to know that if a word is defined as a "human fetus" that you would know that meant that it is applicable to any reference to "human fetus". My mistake, I gave you too much credit.

reply from: nancyu

This is the very first thread I read when I joined this forum...

reply from: faithman

Really miss yoda. He was the first one I fussed with when I came here...
A bit livelier then...sniff sniff ....

reply from: nancyu

Really miss yoda. He was the first one I fussed with when I came here...
A bit livelier then...sniff sniff ....
NO doubt. I used to get up in the morning, pour me a cup of coffee in my http://www.zazzle.com/iaap_defend_the_child_mug-168652595544326208 , (Merchandising. Isn't that what fighting abortion is all about?) and see what was happening with Yodavater and the forum. 8(

reply from: Gaufre

juju,
The dictionary isnt a scientific text, its only meant to mirror how people use the word. Its not a basis for truth.

reply from: Tam

I do, too, and it sure was.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics