Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Abortion: Bad for Babies/Bad for Women
Next, Planned Parenthood has broken federal law. In the least, they must be investigated and quite possibly charged with crimes. We have a (mostly) law-abiding nation and this includes all medical practices as well. Drawing parallels, banks that dealt illegally at the time of the banking crisis in 2008/2009 were prosecuted. Teachers who violate trust of parents, students, and communities are prosecuted. Politicians who break the law are prosecuted. Dentists from Minnesota who kill lions and break the law are prosecuted. Planned Parenthood is not above the law. Quite frankly, if a medical organization breaks the law and violates trust, why would anyone want it to succeed or even exist, especially when other health care options are in place (see above paragraph on the ACA)?
Babies feel pain as early as 20 weeks. Please see this excerpt from the site, Doctors on Fetal Pain.
"The Basics: A wealth of anatomical, behavioral and physiological evidence shows that the developing human fetus is capable of experiencing tremendous pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization.
Anatomical: Pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child’s entire body by no later than 16 weeks after fertilization, and nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks. For unborn children, says Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, 20 weeks is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.” As a result, unborn babies at this age probably feel pain more intensely than adults.
Behavioral: By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human—for example, by recoiling. Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. In addition, ultrasound technology shows that unborn babies at 20 weeks and earlier react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch.
Physiological: The application of painful stimuli is associated with significant increases in the unborn child’s stress hormones. During fetal surgery, anesthesia is routinely administered to the unborn baby and is associated with a decrease in stress hormones compared to their level when painful stimuli is applied without such anesthesia."
Of course there may be times when an abortion may be medically necessary to save a mother's life. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Guttmacher Institute (AGI) stats, a woman has an abortion due to health reasons (not necessarily due to a life threatening scenario) in 12% of cases. 1% of cases of abortion are due to rape. In all other cases the reasons for abortion are (top three reasons): 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Hypothetically, if we have 1,000 women who have abortions 10 are due to rape. 120 are due to medical reasons, although not necessarily life threatening to the mother. The other 870 are due to some form of personal preference or election. Of those 870, 653 said the child would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities. 653 cannot afford a child. 435 do not want to be a single parent or have the child due to their existing relationship. There is overlap in the stats as many women list more than one reason for wanting an abortion.
People state that anyone with any moral standing would not want a fetus to feel pain. There is ample and adequate medical evidence to more than suggest that babies feel pain at 20 weeks, and after 8 weeks the baby reacts to touch.
In the recent cases of Planned Parenthood selling body parts such as hearts, brains, livers, etc.. to have fully-formed organs, ones that a researcher would want to dissect and experiment on, ones that would be large enough and mature enough, the organs must come from babies who are at least 20 weeks old. Babies younger than this are not formed enough for "viability" for medical research.
People with any moral standing would not want fetuses to suffer under inhumane practices, yet abortion, by its definition, is inhumane. Options for abortion procedures include burning the baby with a saline solution, stabbing it, cutting off its limbs, sucking a baby out with a vacuum device, crushing its skull, many of these tactics occur during the same procedure to properly complete the "surgery."
Babies feel pain at 20 weeks, most abortion procedures BEGIN with a systematic dismemberment of the baby's legs and arms (Dilation and Evacuation or D&E). After the legs and arms are cut off, its lower insides are pulled out (bowels, lower organs, etc..). Can people still be alive even if their legs and/or arms have been removed?
How many shark attacks have we seen in the news where a surfer lost a limb and was still alive? Cars or heavy equipment on top of peoples' legs crushing the legs with the person still living? Point is, how humane is it to cut off someone's legs and/or arms while they are still alive and feel pain?
People state they have read about and spoken with women on both sides of the abortion issue. So have I. Have any of you talked with any unborn babies? I have not. But, medical and scientific evidence proves that babies would not want us to do this to them - if they could speak a pro-life stance would be their claim. It's our duty as adults (especially as parents) to look out for the littlest and weakest.
Abortion is not a women's health issue. It is an act. A women's health issue is caring holistically for an entire person.
Yet, "An abortion increases a woman's likelihood of miscarriage, premature birth and complication of labor by at least 300%" (Russel, "Sexual Activity and Its Consequences in the Teenager", Clinics in Ob&Gyn, (Dec. 1974). vol.1,no.3,pp683-698).
Also, "within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor" (Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn.(1980),vol.87,p1115-1122).
Furthermore, "the best available data indicates that on average there is a five to ten year period of denial during which a woman who was traumatized by her abortion will repress her feelings" (Pare and Raven,"Follow-up of Patients Referred for Termination of Pregnancy",The Lancet(1970) vol.1,pp635-638. and Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987).
During this time, the woman may go to great lengths to avoid people, situations, or events which she associates with her abortion and she may even become vocally defensive of abortion in order to convince others, and herself, that she made the right choice and is satisfied with the outcome. In reality, these women who are subsequently identified as having been severely traumatized, have failed to reach a true state of "closure" with regard to their experiences.
Repressed feelings of any sort can result in psychological and behavioral difficulties which exhibit themselves in other areas of one's life. An increasing number of counselors are reporting that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the causative factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems" (Heath,"Psychiatry and Abortion",Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal (1971), vol.16, pp55-63. and Kent, et al., "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Autumn-Winter 1981), vol.13,nos.3-4 ).
Please also consider, "other women who would otherwise appear to have been satisfied with their abortion experience, are reported to enter into emotional crisis decades later with the onset of menopause or after their youngest child leaves home" (Cavenar, et.al., "Psychiatric Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortions", North Carolina Medical Journal (1978),vol.39 and Mattinson, "The Effects of Abortion on a Marriage",1985 Abortion: Medical Progress and Social Implications,(Ciba Foundation Symposium, London: Pitman, 1985).
Numerous researchers have reported that "postabortion crises are often precipitated by the anniversary date of the abortion or the unachieved "due date." These emotional crises may appear to be inexplicable and short-lived, occurring for many years until a connection is finally established during counseling sessions." (Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987 and Wallerstein,et.al., "Psychosocial Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion in Young Unmarried Women", Archives of General Psychiatry (1972) vol.27).
A 5 year retrospective study in "two Canadian provinces found that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group" (Badgley,et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law(Ottawa:Supply and Services,1977) pp.313-321.).
"Women who have undergone post-abortion counseling report over 100 major reactions to abortion. Among the most frequently reported are: depression, loss of self-esteem, self-destructive behavior, sleep disorders, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, chronic problems with relationships, dramatic personality changes, anxiety attacks, guilt and remorse, difficulty grieving, increased tendency toward violence, chronic crying, difficulty concentrating, flashbacks, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities and people, and difficulty bonding with later children" (Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987. and Reardon,"Criteria for the Identification of High Risk Abortion Patients: Analysis of An In-Depth Survey of 100 Aborted Women", Presented at the 1987 Paper Session of the Association for Interdisciplinary Research, Denver.).
Among the most worrisome of these reactions is the increase of self-destructive behavior among aborted women. In a survey of over 100 women who had suffered from post-abortion trauma, fully 80 percent expressed feelings of "self-hatred." In the same study, 49 percent reported drug abuse and 39 percent began to use or increased their use of alcohol. Approximately 14 percent described themselves as having become "addicted" or "alcoholic" after their abortions. In addition, 60 percent reported suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times" (Reardon,"Criteria for the Identification of High Risk Abortion Patients: Analysis of An In-Depth Survey of 100 Aborted Women", Presented at the 1987 Paper Session of the Association for Interdisciplinary Research, Denver.
I care about babies. I care about women. There is no good reason to continue to walk in the path of Planned Parenthood. The great lie is that women are getting to make decisions that seem really good, a la "my body" sort of language, but these decisions are actually harming more women mentally and emotionally. Abortion will actually create trauma in lives. The science proves it. If we want to march for womens' rights, then let's do so but do it in a manner that makes it so we put our federal monies toward programs that support lives of unborn babies AND the on-going lives of women so they can be healthy all-around. A woman is more than her uterus. We need to act like it and start legislating for the entire woman not just her reproductive organs. If we can do this, millions of infant lives, who feel pain, will be spared in the process.
Re: Abortion: Bad for Babies/Bad for Women
ETA: I also noticed most of your studies cited are 40 years old, with the newest being from 1987. They're also focused on the short term. I would be interested to see statistics on women ten to twenty years later and whether they still believed they made the right decision. I'm sure those numbers are out there, but like all statistics you could likely manipulate the data to argue whatever side you're on.
Bolded. I did not state that ACA/Obamacare provides medical services. I said "each person will be able to now receive a wide range of medical services - diagnostic, treatment-oriented, and preventative, from health care providers nation-wide that are both life saving and affordable." I could have clarified that point more. ACA is health insurance. After acquiring it, then a person may receive health care. I assumed that my meaning would be implied. Obviously, I was incorrect. Sorry about that.
Next, it's not the responsibility of anybody other than the individual to make priorities with budgeting and planning for expenses. If people haven't bought insurance, that's not the responsibility of the federal government (or anyone else) to hand hold on that and lead them to signing up. Again, whether it's "young people" as you stated, or another demographic, it is burden of buying something, saving for something or planning for costs of daily living are not the responsibility of anyone other than the man or woman.
I agree with @BlueBirdMB when she wrote this, "But that insurance must cover preventative women's care and BC. That insurance is also heavily subsidized if not free for the low income women that would have been able to get free care at PP.
My question on bolded point you made: Are cells alive?
Science, specifically molecular biology says, "yes." From a site produced by the University of California Santa Barbara, called UCSB ScienceLine, this is what they said, see below. Keep in mind it's written in basic laypersons' terms...
This is a great question, for many reasons. In essence, you are asking the question of "What is life?" and then "How do we detect that life?" If we keep our scope fairly narrow here, we can look at some very basic principles of what it means for a cell to be "alive." Think about this for a minute. You can even ask yourself what it means for your entire body to be "living."
Let's start with a few basics.
How about "breathing?" Do cells breathe? Not in the way you might think about your lungs working, but they do "exchange gas" (like oxygen).
Hmmm... do they "eat" (or "consume energy")? They sure do! Your cells have metabolic enzymes that break down proteins, fats and sugars into energy packets that can be used to build and regulate the cells.
Another key aspect of being "alive" is being able to reproduce. Do cells do that? Yep, most (but not all) of them do, especially the ones that make up your skin, your hair and the lining of your gut. They undergo cell division (a process called mitosis).
Finally, cells that are alive and healthy are able to maintain their structural integrity - they do not have rips in their outer membranes and their nuclei and other intracellular organelles are also membrane bound.
Now, how do we detect these things in cells? It turns out that there are lots of ways to do so. If a cell is not alive, it breaks down structurally and we can detect this pretty easily under a microscope. There are many biochemical ways to detect gas exchange and metabolic processes. And finally, we can detect cell division microscopically as well. Some types of human cells can be kept alive in a culture dish, at least for a while, if provided with the right nutrients and conditions (as well as proper temperature). Looking at cells in culture (in vitro) helps us understand how they work.
Keep asking good questions!Um, well, because if your cells weren't alive, then YOU wouldn't be either! Cells have to be living in order to perform functions; dead muscle cells don't contract, dead nerve cells don't carry information, dead red blood cells don't carry oxygen (and you know this if you're faint, short of breath, etc,) etc. Cells involved in digestion may be less obvious, but generally speaking, if your cells aren't living, then they don't function, and pretty soon the rest of you won't be living either.
It makes you think about what it means to be alive, doesn't it? Some things that living things do are to take in energy, give off wastes, trade gasses (like oxygen and carbon dioxide) with the environment, and reproduce.
It's difficult to see these things going on because each cell is so small. , but our bodies are made of trillions of cells doing these things. Our blood has to carry oxygen to each cell and carry off carbon dioxide so that our cells can turn food into a type of energy they can use.
A better piece of evidence is that some of our cells are always reproducing. Think of all the cells you lose every day. They get scraped off your skin and the inside of your digestive system. They die defending you from disease, but they are replaced when your cells divide by reproducing. Not all of our cells reproduce, but most do. If we were made of non-living parts, like a car, our tiny parts couldn't replace themselves and we'd be getting smaller every time we lost one.
What else separates living things from non-living things? Is fire alive?
Thanks for asking,There are a number of ways in which we can tell which cells in our body are alive. The first of which is that they undergo metabolism, which involves the intake of raw materials into the cell and then chemically converting these materials using enzymes to release energy or to produce other useful substances that allow the cell to function. The products of these metabolic pathways are crucial to maintain a regulated internal environment in the cell (aka homeostasis). Cells that are unable to maintain homeostasis will ultimately die. These products are also used in two other important fashions: for cell growth, and cell reproduction. Live cells are able grown by increasing in size, and sometimes if they achieve sufficient size will reproduce by dividing, producing two new cells."
So cells are alive. Are a woman's egg and a man's sperm considered by science as cells? According to the website for the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, "the egg is amongst the largest cells in an organism and the sperm is often the smallest cell."
Cells are alive. Eggs and sperm are considered cells, therefore logically they are also alive. If two live things come together do they make a dead thing? They make a live thing. If an egg cell and a sperm cell are alive, then when they meet, what they make will be a live thing.
The basic science in biology is that there is life at conception because the two components who make conception occur are living. Is there a unique (different from the egg and sperm cells) life at conception?
Yes, when the sperm cell and egg cell meet, the chromosomes with all the DNA from both get used to make new cells. The multiplication continues.
Right at the start, the uniqueness of the individual is present.
Therefore, science shows that abortion kills a unique, living thing.
Is the living thing a person? That's where belief comes in to the discussion. What denotes a person? Does the passage of a few weeks or months make someone not a person become a person because they passed a calendar milestone? If I had a baby in my uterus, does it become a person when I say it does? How can we use subjective reasoning for that? What if someone reasons differently? Does it become a person when it could survive on its own outside my body with medical intervention? So at week 25 it's not a person, but week 26 it is? If I want my baby then to me it's a person as soon as DH and I conceived it. But, if my neighbor conceives, and she doesn't want her baby, can we say that baby is not a person based on my neighbor's personal preference and choice? Why does my baby get to be a person but her baby does not get to be a person? How is that fair to the living thing in her uterus?
I am interested in equal rights for all people.
Here's the link to the site for the American Pregnancy Association. http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-emotional-effects/
Cited sources are from the 1980s, 1990's, early 2000's and up into 2003."Potential side effects include:
Here's a link to the British Royal College of Physiatrists page for a study's British Journal of Psychiatry conclusions from 1995-2009.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180
"Method After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimise bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion). Random effects pooled odds ratios were computed using adjusted odds ratios from the original studies and PAR statistics were derived from the pooled odds ratios.
Results Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.
Conclusions This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services."
I'll stand with my point that abortion is bad for babies AND women. We can do better!
ETA: The link. I forgot it.
Cited sources are from the 1980s, 1990's, early 2000's and up into 2003.Here's the link to the site for the American Pregnancy Association. http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-emotional-effects/
"Potential side effects include:
Here's a link to the British Royal College of Physiatrists page for a study's British Journal of Psychiatry conclusions from 1995-2009.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180
"Method After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimise bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion). Random effects pooled odds ratios were computed using adjusted odds ratios from the original studies and PAR statistics were derived from the pooled odds ratios.
Results Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.
Conclusions This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services."
I'll stand with my point that abortion is bad for babies AND women. We can do better!
ETA: The link. I forgot it.
You are cherry picking from these sources. The same page on the American Pregnancy Association website also says directly "Some women report a sense of relief following their abortions." And you've highlighted the wrong number on the British Journal. Only 10% of the respondents' mental health problems can be attributed to their abortions. The fact that they are 81% more likely to have mental health problems as a group is likely because of an underlying reason behind their abortion: 40% of women seeking abortions make and live under the poverty level, with 6 of every 10 women seeking an abortion already having one child and more than 3 in 10 having two or more children.
If we lived in a nation without safe legal abortions I cannot imagine the mental health of these already fragile women, who would be further emotionally, physically and financially burdened by children they didn't want, would be better. I would venture to guess in this hypothetical society for many their mental health and wellness would be worse, especially considering those who forced them to bear these unwanted children also believe collectively like you do that the "costs of daily living are not the responsibilty of anyone other than the man or woman."
All of that said, I do agree with you @MommyLiberty5013 about late term abortions. Twenty weeks is just too close to the point of viability. But again, statistically more than 9 out of 10 abortions already take place during the first trimester.
(Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html)
Yeah I know I sound stupid but really had no idea. I didn't know doc offices did that either. I agree they do need to be investigated.
At least where I live, this is true. Doctors who perform abortions primarily do that along with general women's health services (ie PAP smears, etc.), but not usually OB. Generally speaking, an abortion is a service a woman would need to go looking for. I think there is usually a special piece of equipment for abortions of fetuses that are 8-12 weeks and hence why it is more of a specialized service and not necessarily something any OB/GYN could do on just a whim. Now with that said, there are medical procedures, also called abortions, that sometimes need to be performed during delivery or if a pregnant woman is in distress. All OB/GYNs will perform these types of procedures, though they are almost always in a hospital setting.
Abortions usually cannot be done earlier than 8 weeks because the fetus is not large enough to be seen.
When does life begin? In the end, I think that is what the essential question boils down to between pro-life and pro-choice. And I don't think anyone is "right", it is a matter of a person's opinion.
For me, I'm just pragmatic about it. If a fetus cannot live outside of its mother's womb, it is the woman's choice to end the pregnancy. A pregnancy can take over your life and health and I would find it a bit barbaric to force a woman to be a "host" for a fetus she doesn't want.
If a fetus can live outside the womb, than it has developed enough to breathe and eat on its own and to have a brain. I think brain function is a big one for me. An 8-week old fetus is the about the size of a walnut. It doesn't think, it doesn't have feelings. Yes, it is living tissue, but it is not a life yet. I would value a dog or cat's life over a first trimester fetus...because an animal already has a brain, and thoughts, and a personality.
And one of my pet peeves, not directed at anyone on this forum, is when pro-lifers refer to fetuses as babies. They are not babies. Babies are humans who have been born and are no longer living in their mother's womb. Don't get me wrong, I would never split that hair with a pregnant woman or a woman who suffered a miscarriage, but pro-lifers purposely use the wrong term for word semantics. Because the word "fetus" evokes images of a blurry blob on an ultra sound. Not very warm and cuddly. Whereas, the word baby evokes images of little toes and fingers, peach fuzz on their cute little round heads.
You said, "When does life begin? In the end, I think that is what the essential question boils down to between pro-life and pro-choice. And I don't think anyone is "right", it is a matter of a person's opinion." Then you said, "Yes, it is living tissue, but it is not a life yet."
You are splitting hairs.
I have a lot of "living tissue" on my body - my skin, for example. My skin can be grafted elsewhere if I am burned because it is living tissue. But, while an unborn human inside a woman, is made up if living tissue, it is also alive. It is alive due to its living tissue BUT also because it is unique. It is unique due to the sharing of DNA that has occurred right at the start during cell division. Unique DNA from the woman and unique DNA from the man, come together and they make brand new, totally unique DNA. DNA #1 comes together with DNA #2 and makes a DNA#3, not a replication of #1 or #2. When my skin regenerates, it makes more of itself exactly the same way as before (unless it's cancerous and has mutated) That's what makes this unborn human alive - its uniqueness and that it is set apart from its two parents.
It is absolutely NOT a matter of personal opinion or subjective feelings/emotions/desires. Life begins when the two living cells (sperm and egg) meet and multiply. What they make is unique and living (due to the sharing of the DNA that takes place in early cell division). Science itself proves that cells are living. It also proves that sperm and eggs are cells. Logically, therefore, sperm and eggs are living cells and what they produce when they spilt, is also, therefore, alive.
Please let's not have this as a valid point. We are dealing with basic Biology 101 here. It is irrefutable - Life begins at conception. This cannot even be part of the argument any longer. And, in fact it is basically not - the pro-choice crowd has conceded that life does in fact begin at conception.
I wrote in detail about this very topic of life beginning at conception in another thread. I also included quotes and links to verifiable scientific resources from unbiased university and governmental sources, to prove that life does begin at conception. Science itself has stated this as fact.
Where you CAN have a discussion, though, is WHEN DOES PERSONHOOD BEGIN?
Okay, next you said, "it would be barbaric to force a woman to be a "host" for a fetus she doesn't want."
I am going to focus specifically on your word "host." Let us go ahead and apply the same "rule" you used about the word "baby" from your PP. You stated that pro-lifers may not use the word "baby" because its use in writings and discussions elicits certain images or emotions in people that cause people to think of the unborn human as more than just an unborn human.
Well, what does your word "host" do? If a woman is a "host" then a baby is a very horrible, terrible, germy, yucky, parasite? Basically, that is what you are saying.
A "host" (noun), "hosts" (verb) something. In scientific terms, the "host," hosts a parasite. Therefore you are saying that an unborn human is a parasite. What does that do differently than the use of the word "baby?" Your word choice essentially permits people to view the unborn human as a blood sucking detriment to the woman's body. Imagines of worms in someone's gut could come to mind. We get rid of worms in our guts. No questions asked - eliminate those suckers!!! So what happens then when you call a woman a "host" and therefore an unborn human a "parasite?" We get free passes to eliminate the suckers. Rather than fuzzy, cute "baby" images you instead swap to imagery of blood sucking, disgusting horrible worms that only take away and create disease. "Baby" causes people to be afraid to kill it. "Host/parasite" causes people to feel just a-okay about killing it.
Furthermore a parasite reduces the well-being of its host; a baby increases the fitness of its mother. Here is something on this topic from Dr. T.C. Cheng, in his book, General Parasitology...an expert in this field...
"Science and biology CLEARLY delineate the difference between and unborn living human being and a parasite: A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of ANOTHER species and deriving its nourishment from the host. We need to keep in mind while reading through this that the point of sex, and thus the point of a new creation coming about in the womb is NOT to kill the mother or deprive her from any of the things she needs to function on a daily basis. [1]
A human embryo is an organism of one species living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the SAME species and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship. A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an OUTSIDE source. A human embryo is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an INSIDE source, being formed in the ovary of the mother. A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
A human embryo is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother. The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother. A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for LIFE.
A human embryo has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a NEGATIVE manner which will often damage the host. A human embryo is a human being that associates with the mother in a POSITIVE manner necessary for the procreation of the species."
And lastly, let us discuss the word, "fetus" and its meaning.
Broadly defined in biological terms it is, "The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth" (Biology Online). Yet its roots are Latin. I am not usually a fan of Wikipedia, but it had a good layout for the definition of this Latin word and its root.
Noun
fētus m (genitive fētūs); fourth declension
Biology and medicine use the Latin term "fetus" as they do with many other Latin or Latin-based words in those fields. For example, a doctor will write "left upper appendage" when he means "left arm" in the same manner using Latin terms, he will write "posterior renal pain" when he actually means "pain in the back at the site of the kidneys." So, "fetus" is definitely a valid word to use when writing about the unborn human inside a woman during pregnancy - it is often used in medical settings. So I cannot debate with you about whether or not to use the word "fetus." But, I can and will debate about the word "baby" - it works just fine too. The LATIN definition includes "offspring, young, progeny" and "baby" is another word for "offspring." Synonymous.
Your position is to not use the word "baby" because of the imagery it causes. Then, let us not use the word "mother" either. "Baby" goes with "mother" and there is an association there. It is illogical to not utilize or prevent the use of "baby" but then go and say (or type) "mother." Along these lines of thought, a better word choice would be "female producer of offspring."
I am going to stick with "baby" and "mother," though. It more easily fits in the general vernacular of our world and culture. People "get" what you mean when you say "baby" and "mother."
@MommyLiberty5013, that's fair. I did use the word "host" in the same word association way that pro-lifers use the word baby to describe a fetus. A bit unfair of me, as well. Though I actually do think of an unwanted fetus as a parasite. It is an entity living off another creature, taking their resources, sometimes endangering the woman's life, and offering nothing in return.
At least for a wanted pregnancy, it is a bit more of a symbiotic relationship because the fetus is offering in return a woman's happiness and excitement to be (hopefully) expanding her family, adding to the human race, bringing a new life into the world. Unborn animals, whether human or other mammals do behave in a parasitic fashion when in the womb. But, of course, that is the necessary behavior we need for all the mammalian species to live on...so I'm not knocking it or even saying parasite in a negative way (in this sense).
I just still think it is barbaric to force a woman to live with something growing inside her that she doesn't want. Not to mention, while thank goodness with medical science it is substantially safer nowadays for women to give birth to children, there are still terrible things that can go wrong medically either during a pregnancy or giving birth. Again, why should a women be forced to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want? And possibly end up diabetic for the rest of her life? Or die?
And I actually would not use the word mother to describe a pregnant woman planning to have an abortion, just like I wouldn't describe her fetus as a baby. It would just be an odd word choice precisely because that fetus will never become a baby.
Fair enough again, where does personhood begin? A fetus is life. Sure. Is it an important life? To me, no...at least not until it is developed enough to have a brain and live outside the womb. There is all kinds of life in this world that most people don't value. Bugs, pigs, cows, mice, fish, etc. Some people think "meat is murder", most people at meat at least once a week. Different opinions. And few people would think twice about swatting a fly. But its all life. And we all put different values on different types of lives. We do it every day, whether we think about it or not. No one would think twice about $5K to save their child's life, but their beloved cat or dog? Maybe not.
And even in my own admittedly cold view of fetuses, a wanted pregnancy is a much more valued life than an unwanted one. I am certainly sympathetic and sad for my friends who miscarry, because that was a life that mattered to them.
Not necessarily abortion debate related, just pregnancy facts I found interesting. According to WebMD, 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage....though the majority of the time the woman does not even know she was pregnant. 15% of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage.
Oh, sorry, last point! I totally agree that people use mother and baby all the time when discussing a pregnant woman and her fetus. I think I even said above that I am cool with that and totally understand it. I do it myself, even though I don't think it is scientifically correct, because they are understood in our culture that way, as you said. I just find it word manipulation when pro-lifers use the word baby when describing abortions because those are fetuses that will most certainly never become babies, so its weird to call them that. Whereas, the fetus of a wanted pregnancy will hopefully and most likely become a baby someday, so no biggie to refer to it as a baby and the pregnant woman as a mom.