This is a perposterous position! What baby can survive on its own outside the mothers womb? Every baby will die without assistance from someone else. People who hold this position need to take a boat load of thinking pills!
2006-10-01 15:05:09 · 16 answers · asked by nobodiesinc 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
You are correct! You're referring to The Viability Myth, to which I am devoting a chapter in my new book.
Here is the reason that the liberal and feminists came out with this Big Fib: They know that after a discovery of a pregnancy from doing what causes pregnanices, they will have a convenient time frame to kill, because the point of so-called "viability" has not been reached and they can feel falsely justified. It's a totally false way of getting rid of their guilt.
2006-10-01 15:06:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The term "fetus" describes a stage of development whereby all nutrition, hydration, oxygenation and waste removal occur through the maternal blood system.
"Viability" indicates the stage of development whereby an infant can breath through its lungs, digest food and generally survive with proper care. No one is suggesting that a baby should be making its own lunch.
A fetus that is not viable has organs too underdeveloped to work properly. It would die outside the womb no matter what was done for it. If the fetus were removed from the womb and its lungs and digestive system functioned, it would no longer be called a fetus, no matter how premature it was, because it was no longer using an umbillicus to survive.
"Baby" isn't really a medical term. Traditionally it is used to indicate a born infant but it can also indicate an unborn fetus. It doesn't have a specific medical meaning.
Plenty of thinking has gone on. You just weren't paying attention.
2006-10-01 22:36:30 · answer #2 · answered by skepsis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When they say that a fetus isn't viable outside the mothers womb, that means not that the baby can't get it's own food to survive, but that the baby can't draw it's own breath and there for it could not survive without its mother breathing for it. All doctors will tell you that there is a certain point that a fetus reaches when it could survive outside the womb, but until then if they had to remove the fetus from the womb for any reason(say medical reasons for the safety of the mother) the fetus would not survive. That is the point that people are trying to make when they say that a fetus is not a baby.
2006-10-01 22:13:47 · answer #3 · answered by whatelks67 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the age of viability is a very important concept. i don't care if you use the term baby or fetus, but before the age of viability the baby is not able to survive outside the womb. the womb is property of the mother. of course a baby can not survive without the help of others once it is born, but it doesn't need a womb any longer, it just needs assistance from someone. so therefore, before the baby can live without the womb, it is not "baby", it just has the potential to be one. just like a sperm and egg have the potential to be one. so if you are so pro-choice, you better not take any form of birth control-because you are preventing that potential birth from happening in the same way. (that includes condoms, but not to mention IUD's which technically abort a combined egg and sperm before implantation). all these things we use to prevent birth are killing the chances of a fetus from becoming a baby. there's a reason abortion is legal before the age of viability...take a boat load of thinking pills and think on that.
2006-10-01 22:35:10 · answer #4 · answered by prettyhate 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since this is a science forum, it should be pointed out that those are scientific terms, and in fact, it is called a fetus when in the womb, and a baby after it has been expelled from the womb.
But the question you seem to be addressing here is about abortions. This goes to when this fetus is determined to be alive.
This really depends on your definition of life, and even that can be difficult to define. Arguments can be made for several stages. Some believe that sperm and eggs are alive, and any birth control is akin to abortion. Some believe that when it is in it's earliest stages, a ball of cells called a blastula, it is acceptable to dislodge these cells and remove them. Others use the concepts of fetal pain, or viability. If we're not careful, our definitions can be so broad that bacteria or our skin cells should be considered to have these rights of life, or so fine that not all humans will fit into it.
The real reason we have this argument is that we're often using different terms. I believe that many people base the ideas of what is life on ideas of when someone gets their soul. The delivery and removal of a soul is paramount to most people's views on life. I think this is a total valid way for people to make decisions in their personal lives, but it is a decision based on religion. Since we all have very different ideas of religion, it should not be a part of how we legally decide on the definition of life, or what definitions we deem all in society must respect.
2006-10-01 22:33:50 · answer #5 · answered by lizettadf 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because they are stupid and ignorant. They need some way to justify the sick things that people do, and their idea that a fetus isn't a baby until it can survive outside of the womb isn't a very good justification. The youngest baby ever recorded to survive and live its life outside of the womb was born at 18 weeks of gestation. So, how is that little guy not a human? Yeah, whatever. It makes me upset. All mammals produce their same kind of mammal. Bears create bears, cats create cats, and yes, humans create humans. What else would be living in the mom's belly? A plastic mold of a little person. Nope. It obviously needs food and oxygen to survive, it's not a plant because a fetus does conscious actions like kicking, and sucking his thumb. I'm sure you know all this, but maybe somebody that doesn't, will read this and get their thinking straight.
2006-10-01 22:10:24 · answer #6 · answered by jesse s 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Zygote,Embryo,Fetus are humans at an earlier stage in life. There is no magical happening between a 40wk fetus and an infant born 5 minutes later. The infant is actually more dependant than a fetus. A fetus becomes "viable" at 23 weeks but there is a beating heart at 3 weeks and a working brain at 8. In fact everything is formed at 8 weeks. Even before the heart,there is still a little human,again,at an early stage of life. These pro abortion nuts just depend so much on excuses and justifications when the only real choice we need is the choice of our borth control method. And these feminists for choice,its so sad they need to kill litttle babies in order to feel equal to a man. So stupid. And,btw, I can be judgemental as I was carrying a baby I knew would die,with no eyes and an unformed brain and I still went to term bc every baby deserves to be held and loved and sung to,if nothing else.
2006-10-01 22:11:02 · answer #7 · answered by TrofyWife 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think a fetus is a baby. It's just not fully developed, but it is still very much alive inside the mother womb.
2006-10-01 22:13:03 · answer #8 · answered by Linds 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This a perfect example of a euphemism.
Abortion could not be legal if the "fetus" were deemed a "baby."
As often is the case, Shakespeare said it best - a rose by any other name is still a rose.
It's the same reason ProChoice isn't called ProAbortion.
It's simply the teaspoon of sugar that makes the medicine go down easier.
2006-10-01 22:18:01 · answer #9 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I can't actually say why a 'fetus is not.......womb', but even a baby outside a mother's womb cannot survive on it's own!!!
The people who think so.. i doubt whether they use their brains to think...
2006-10-01 23:00:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋