"unborn baby" is like "boneless wing"
they're both rhetorical constructions designed to get you to imagine one more recognizable whole when really you're talking about a completely different incomplete thing
"telling it like it is" would mean using fetus or nugget, please
Are you kidding? Conservatives hate pregnant teens.
That might be one of the stupidest things I have ever read. An unborn baby, fetus if you will, is just that, a baby that hasn't been born yet. You all know this already but pretend like you don't. I don't know how you can be a father and go to that first pre-natal appointment and hear the heartbeat and see those images on the screen and think of that as less than an unborn baby.
What if you go to that first pre-natal appointment, and the heartbeat is there but kind of weak and the fetus is measuring a few days behind where they should be, so they tell you to come back a week later so they can check the growth, and when you come back a week later there has been no growth and the heartbeat is gone? Is that still an unborn baby?
An honest, general discussion of abortion isn’t quibbling over terms, but a discussion of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Should pregnant women be legally compelled to give birth? How can a pre-term fetus be given legal recognition without violating the freedom of the pregnant mother? What are the terms or limits of a mother’s legal obligation to their fetus?
Eh. The terms/definitions are central to many (perhaps most?) people. You can argue it should not be that way, but that's not reality
Is this a serious question? That is a terribly sad situation that many people experience and one that should not be made light of.
The terms can be as important or unimportant to people as they choose, the debate is still a mother’s bodily autonomy vs the state legally compelling them to give birth to an it - You could call it an adult, an elephant, a jar of nuts, whatever.
Even beyond the point of viability the baby/chicken nugget still has to be physically expelled from the mother at significant physical risk - that’s why the debate *can not* be centered on the fetus, but a mother’s legal obligation to give birth. The debate is about the process of birth. Can the state legally compel a person to give birth against their own free will?
Is this a serious question? That is a terribly sad situation that many people experience and one that should not be made light of.
In general, I agree, and this is well-stated. However, for some, the debate does also cover frozen embryos, fetal cell lines, research approaches, etc., and it is not just about birth.
Yeah dude it fucking happened to my wife and me. You think I’m making light of it? My point is that a fetus is a fetus. It is not yet an unborn baby.