JohnH wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 11:12 am
I’m aware of attempts to claim unborn babies aren’t people and don’t deserve to live.
Yes, unfortunately there are people in this world who do that. Those people will give account of their actions.
But don't confuse those people's efforts with someone else's correct usage of terminology.
It’s a baby or an unborn baby. Any other usage is simply giving in to the attempts of those who like to kill babies who want us to call it a “fetus” or “blob of tissue”.
If you’ve ever studied embryology, maybe you would have a little bit more patience for this sort of stuff…
Would it upset you to say zygote, blastocyst, embryo? It’s not like embryology only came about when the country decided to be pro-abortion. The term fetus was used as early as the 1800s to define a specific stage of development They are still fully human.
You know I’m not pro-abortion although I use the terms fetal cells, fetal tissue. These terms do not have to be negative unless they’re used in a particular context. People using these terms are not necessarily pro abortion.
You certainly didn’t object to me using these terms And I’m pretty sure that he is not pro-abortion.
Yes, unfortunately there are people in this world who do that. Those people will give account of their actions.
But don't confuse those people's efforts with someone else's correct usage of terminology.
It’s a baby or an unborn baby. Any other usage is simply giving in to the attempts of those who like to kill babies who want us to call it a “fetus” or “blob of tissue”.
If you’ve ever studied embryology, maybe you would have a little bit more patience for this sort of stuff…
Would it upset you to say zygote, blastocyst, embryo? It’s not like embryology only came about when the country decided to be pro-abortion. The term fetus was used as early as the 1800s to define a specific stage of development They are still fully human.
You know I’m not pro-abortion although I use the terms fetal cells, fetal tissue. These terms do not have to be negative unless they’re used in a particular context. People using these terms are not necessarily pro abortion.
You certainly didn’t object to me using these terms And I’m pretty sure that he is not pro-abortion.
In the context of being an abortion apologist, I will call it out.
JohnH wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 11:12 am
I’m aware of attempts to claim unborn babies aren’t people and don’t deserve to live.
Yes, unfortunately there are people in this world who do that. Those people will give account of their actions.
But don't confuse those people's efforts with someone else's correct usage of terminology.
It’s a baby or an unborn baby. Any other usage is simply giving in to the attempts of those who like to kill babies who want us to call it a “fetus” or “blob of tissue”.
Care to back that up with something other than your own opinion?
Are you the authority that judges the actions and intents of others?
Once again, let me remind you, these terminologies are for clear communication regarding the developmental stage. Their usage has no implications on morality. They are terms used to avoid ambiguity and to communicate clearly. Clear communication should be commended, not relegated.
Yes, unfortunately there are people in this world who do that. Those people will give account of their actions.
But don't confuse those people's efforts with someone else's correct usage of terminology.
It’s a baby or an unborn baby. Any other usage is simply giving in to the attempts of those who like to kill babies who want us to call it a “fetus” or “blob of tissue”.
Care to back that up with something other than your own opinion?
Are you the authority that judges the actions and intents of others?
Once again, let me remind you, these terminologies are for clear communication regarding the developmental stage. Their usage has no implications on morality. They are terms used to avoid ambiguity and to communicate clearly. Clear communication should be commended, not relegated.
No, they aren’t. “Fetus” is a term used to dehumanise an unborn baby. The context was discussing abortion.
It is a baby. Calling it a “fetus” doesn’t change that.
We would say things like "She is going to have a baby", which might indicate that she does not currently have a baby, which begs the question, "Then what does she currently have?". However, in the case of a miscarriage, we would say "She lost her baby".
In our circles we would never use the word fetus in our normal lives and discussions. That would feel terribly strange. It is a word that is used by society to erase the idea that there is a living baby inside the womb.
Many who use the term fetus are referring to the biological stage as has been stated. And many of these people are opposed to abortion. Just because they use the term does not mean they are 'dehumanizing' the baby. I have spoken of the development of babies as fetuses and yet when my daughter had a miscarriage I did say she lost her baby. Much of it is context but whichever way - some folks here are putting words and thoughts into other folks minds because they don't care for the terminology.
Context does matter and most of all the person speaking and their beliefs matter. I'd rather have some refer to the baby at this stage of development as a fetus and be pro-life than one who calls it a baby and aborts it. And yes there are some who do.
Historically, the word "child" rather than "baby" was used for the unborn person. In the company of those who accept abortion, it is more defensible than "baby", which most of the time is used for the child after it is born.
JimFoxvog wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 4:27 pm
Historically, the word "child" rather than "baby" was used for the unborn person. In the company of those who accept abortion, it is more defensible than "baby", which most of the time is used for the child after it is born.
I would be fine with “child” as it is humanizing language.
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:26 pm
There will be no more need for new fetal cell lines. It is now possible to "reprogram" somatic cells to act like stem cells. There is still much safety testing to be done, but barring any problems, should be available soon.
If that’s true, that will be great, but I’m very skeptical It’s going to happen. We use fetal cell lines for drug production, Safety testing, For disease lab tests, For medical sterilization equipment, Vaccine production…
This abortion was NOT to create a vaccine, it was an elective abortion done for what is commonly called "social reasons." Had the tissue not been used, it would have gone to the incinerator. Get your facts straight. The "Children of God for Life" is simply not a good source for the facts. It is an advocacy group. So better to throw away the tissue? The bell cannot be unsung. Measles is nothing to trifle with.
Have you ever seen me argue that it was done to create the vaccine? You’re deflecting the central point.
By your logic, you should be happy to receive an organ from an abortion. And really why not? You might as well even pay the mother as long as she didn’t know she was going to be paid right?
I am not getting my facts from them. In fact, I’m providing them facts from peer reviewed research articles.
You cannot actually dispute any source I’ve provided in the past they all are accurate. If you can feel free to dig it up and show me.
It’s obvious that you and I will never agree on this, but don’t produce strawman arguments that I never argued for.
Maybe it is wiser to protect the children in front of us? Does pro-life end at birth? Measles, in particular, can and does kill. It was the largest killer of native Americans after the columbian exchange. While I understand your objections to the currently available MMR vaccine, the cell line that is used to create it is there. Destroying it will not make the dead child resurrect. The policy passed under George W. Bush represents a fair compromise. Do not create any new ones, don't destroy the ones currently in use. I support this policy as a pragmatic, but necessary compromise.
But since I hear a position taken that is an absolutist position, I would consider it inconsistent if it was only vaccines that there is an objection to. If you are to be consistent, you will need treat ALL products that are tested, created or produced by stem cells the same, not just vaccines. I just do not see this happening.
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 8:36 pm
Maybe it is wiser to protect the children in front of us? Does pro-life end at birth? Measles, in particular, can and does kill. It was the largest killer of native Americans after the columbian exchange. While I understand your objections to the currently available MMR vaccine, the cell line that is used to create it is there. Destroying it will not make the dead child resurrect. The policy passed under George W. Bush represents a fair compromise. Do not create any new ones, don't destroy the ones currently in use. I support this policy as a pragmatic, but necessary compromise.
But since I hear a position taken that is an absolutist position, I would consider it inconsistent if it was only vaccines that there is an objection to. If you are to be consistent, you will need treat ALL products that are tested, created or produced by stem cells the same, not just vaccines. I just do not see this happening.
In case you haven't noticed, both public opinion and government policy is transforming from "you are a bad, evil person if you don't agree to take all kinds of vaccines" to one allowing personal choice and encouraging a release of all the data, instead of the near-religious mantra that "all vaccines are safe and reliable".
I also don't really want to hear from people who don't share my convictions about how I should be "consistent" with mine. They are my convictions, not yours. I hope you will eventually have the same convictions, but if you don't, your opinion on how I should practice them is utterly irrelevant. Your tone seems to be one of simply pushing the propaganda that vaccines are somehow required to be alive, as if the human race didn't exist before 1960.
