“Note to Jill Stanek: ‘Tri’ = ‘Three'”
A couple days ago Kim H. at Feministing wrote a critique of my column last week, which I ignored frankly because it was foolish and not very original.
Silliest of all was Kim’s inability to grasp the meaning of my hyperbolic (“a figure of speech that is an exaggeration”) use of the terminology “4th trimester” abortions in the 1st paragraph, to describe, as I explained in the 2nd paragraph, Barack Obama’s support of “abandoning abortion survivors to die.”
Kim had to let me know, “‘Tri’ means three.”
I was disappointed Kim didn’t appreciate my creative flair (although I must give credit to Fr. Frank Pavone for 1st coining the “4th trimester” term) but could only comprehend the dimension in front of her, the black and white on the screen.
But now I’m getting heckled by some of Kim’s like-nonminded friends who don’t understand what I meant either, even though I was kind enough to explain it for crowd densities. For instance, Lauren A. of Michigan Technological University emailed me this morning to wonder, “What, pray tell, is a fourth trimester?”
And then came a not very nice note from Rosie W.-G.…
Um, Jill, a trimester is one third. Tri = 3. Like TRIangle, get it? The fourth trimester of a pregnancy does not exist, because after the third trimester, the baby is BORN, you idiot. If you want to pretend that your cause is credible, at least try to get the most basic facts right.
“Idiot”? Tsk, tsk. Finally, Karen L. had to get most snippy:
Go back to school and learn a little about science AND math.
Apparently you fail, and miserably at both. While you’re there, take a history class too, and perhaps a civics and government/
poli. sci class would be good. Here’s what you might learn…
TRI means “three”, ergo there can only be a first, second and third trimester in a pregnancy….
These are just a few of the things you MIGHT learn. But I won’t hold my breath. Science has also shown that there is some kind of “supernatural” block in the brains of fundies that causes a serious deficit in learning anything.
So just to clarify for all nonfundies in the crowd, my use of the term “4th trimester abortion” really means post-birth abortions, ergo INFANTICIDE, that which Barack Obama is on record for supporting for fear of otherwise gutting Roe v. Wade.
I am posting an illustration on the right, created by our own Christina, to further help nonfundies grasp the concept. Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynahan described partial birth abortion as “infanticide,” although Obama supports 1 step beyond that, shelving abortion survivors to die.
But I hope this helps Obama fans get the concept.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I would add an ethics class to that list, Jill. Since you’re still lying about Barack Obama’s position on late term abrtion, I see.
What part of “the state can properly restrict late-term abortions” do you not understand?
I previously taught at a school which divided the school year into quarters. Many students thought that vacation school was supposed to be something like a vacation, so I wanted to call it the fifth quarter instead–to imply something both rigorous and abnormal.
I find it odd that feministing uses the same symbol seen on truckers mudflaps, a highly sexist symbol.
I’m so surprised that people didn’t get the whole fourth trimester thing. Of course this is where the pro-choice movement shines; in their semantics and use of terms. So actually, I suppose I’m not surprised by the fact that the content of what you said was ignored for the more dubious position of criticizing you for “getting terminology wrong” even though it clearly referred to allowing born infants to die.
Whenever you use a term like “baby” to refer to the unborn or “partial birth abortion” to refer to D & X, you’re always setting yourself up to have the subject changed to the “proper, scientifically and medically accurate terminology” rather than the content of what you just said. The pro-choice movement was built on a solid foundation of semantics, and that legacy carries on strongly to this day.
Andy – have to laugh – I thought the same thing.
Bobby, “unborn baby” is fine with me.
“After birth” works pretty well too.
And then came a not very nice note from Rosie W.-G.:
Um, Jill, a trimester is one third. Tri = 3. Like TRIangle, get it? The fourth trimester of a pregnancy does not exist, because after the third trimester, the “baby” is BORN, you idiot. If you want to pretend that your cause is credible, at least try to get the most basic facts right.
Good joke. She is a hysterical pro deather and says a baby is born. rtwo words before the word Idiot.
If it is a fetus, how can it be a baby that is born? To be consisteant they need to express it in terms of a fetus becoming a baby. Baby being born means it was a baby already.
If she wants to gert her facts straight, It is a baby before and after as it is a fetus before and after. A fetus is defined as “offspring”. It doesn’t end being an offspring upon either arrival or being taken to a nursery. The pagans don’t know their latin or their english.
Andy, I think that the trucker girl is flipping off the patriarchy or some nonsense like that.
As for the posters. Wow, I don’t even know what to say. Someone from within their ranks even pointed out that you were trying to draw the distinction about born alive infants who were allowed to die, but the bosses said “perhaps, but it still uses incorrect grammar!”
This is a classic case of them being unable to attack substance, so they attack syntax. Of course, because you were using the term ironically to begin with, those attack ring pretty hallow.
I find you to be an exception, Doug (not the only one). You’re willing to try and argue against our objections head-on, rather than ignore something we say to concentrate on what term we are using, and of course, I give you props for that.
How embarrassing for for them.
It makes you wonder if it’s an inability on their part to grasp basic humor, being too lazy to look twice at what they’re reading, or simply quick-draw mudslinging.
I actually feel bad for the e-mails. But for Kim H. to actually go and blog on it… whoops.
“but the bosses said “perhaps, but it still uses incorrect grammar!””
Oh yeah! Incorrect grammar! Who cares if abortion is murder or not; someone who thins it is uses incorrect grammar!
What is it? Baby? Fetus? Unborn? No matter let’s kill it first then become the Noun Police.
No doubt if you had said, “I wouldn’t trust Obama any further than I could throw him” they’d complain about how mean you were to want to injury him by throwing him, and how stupid you were to think that Secret Service agents would let you get close enough to try.
The same kind of people who when you cite statistics from the Centers for Disease Control snort that “Abotiion’s not a DISEASE!” and that therefore the statistics must be bogus.
I propose we now refer to every human by only their base, biological terms.
Instead of a mother, I’m a multipara, instead of nursing by baby I’m using the lactational feeding method to nourish my infant. From now on I decry that like the pro-killing-human-offspring-as-long-as-said-offspring-still-resides-within-the-uterus-of-the-maternal-parent crowd, that colloquial speech is strictly forbidden!
Jill,
For those who doubt that there’s such a thing as a fourth trimester, can you please re-post the infamous video where Obama refers to the already born baby as a “fetus”? Thanks.
Dear Jill,
Your terminology of the “Fourth” Trimester is one that has been used in childbirth education literature for years. This term is defined as 1-12 weeks postpartum by such reliable sources as Childbirth Graphics in their slides dated back to 1987 and is currently used in their “Four” Trimesters of Childbearing Charts Sets that are listed in the Childbirth Graphics catalog 2008 Edition 1 on page 2. You can go online to see the catalog at ChildbirthGraphics.com or request a printed catalog from them to confirm this if you wish. Although your hate filled pro-abortion critics will probably not accept any response that you give, you are correctly using this terminology. Don’t back down and give in to their pro-death agenda. I am praying for you and prolifers all over this nation and world. God bless you and God help the United States of America. I indeed mourn for this nation after this election but know God is still in control.
The fourth trimester of a pregnancy does not exist, because after the third trimester, the baby is BORN, you idiot. If you want to pretend that your cause is credible, at least try to get the most basic facts right.
*****************************************
I’m sitting here shaking my head at how obtuse these people are.
OF COURSE, the baby is BORN, that’s why it’s been euphemistically called “the FOURTH trimester.” They are killed AFTER they are nearly fully delivered and/or AFTER they are FULLY DELIVERED.
Maybe next time, so it won’t be lost on them, we should just call it what it is: infanticide; killing a BORN child.
Eh, what am I thinking?? It would still be lost on them.
“Dear Jill,
Your terminology of the “Fourth” Trimester is one that has been used in childbirth education literature for years. This term is defined as 1-12 weeks postpartum by such reliable sources as Childbirth Graphics in their slides dated back to 1987 and is currently used in their “Four” Trimesters of Childbearing Charts Sets that are listed in the Childbirth Graphics catalog 2008 Edition 1 on page 2. You can go online to see the catalog at ChildbirthGraphics.com or request a printed catalog from them to confirm this if you wish. Although your hate filled pro-abortion critics will probably not accept any response that you give, you are correctly using this terminology. Don’t back down and give in to their pro-death agenda. I am praying for you and prolifers all over this nation and world. God bless you and God help the United States of America. I indeed mourn for this nation after this election but know God is still in control.”
@@@@@@@@@@good job. They also don’t like medical truth. they twist medical concepts and terms all day long.
We apply the expression to that as the behavior of sociopaths.
Apparently the nitwits at Feministing have never attended a 5th Quarter party after a football game. I guess the title was just too confusing for them.
Well, golly gee, would ya look at that??
http://www.childbirthgraphics.com/storefrontB2CWEB/itemdetail.do?action=prepare_detail&itm_id=18540
Very cool. Thanks, Prolifer L! :)
Kim, Karen, and Rosie…and now phylosopher…yikes there is no talking logic with them.
You know what? I’m going to forgive Kim H. at Feministing for her ignorance of the term. She’s probably entering her 100th trimester and her mind is getting a little foggy.
The photo of this poor little baby brings tears to my eyes everytime I have seen it.
How could any human being ever do this to another is beyond comprehension. If this were a dog, the person would be arrested and booked for animal cruelty.
How could such an evil monster hold a scared, innocent live kicking baby in one hand and mutilate it in another until it dies.
But I guess we have been over this a million times.
Jill,you are the best.
Sorry,
My I caccidently his post.
To finish….Jill you are the best. I love your response as always. I don’t claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but these stupid girls are just that.
Stupid.
Sorry,
“I accidently hit post”
We have a new puppy that is distracting me.
He’s cute, but a bugger.
Jill, I am behind you 100% and appreciate your efforts to get the truth out about Obama’s radical death views. Another phrase that Obama uses that is totally crazy besides calling an already born baby a “fetus” is that these born baby’s are only “temporarily alive”. Meaning if the mother decided to kill her baby and it didn’t happen, nothing should stop the completion of that “decision” so that then infanticide in Obama’s mind is completely justified. This was broadcast and commented on by Laura Ingraham and others. One wonders if in Obama’s “world” we are all just “temporarily alive” so that he can promote all kinds of things against anyone who disagrees with him. What is next?
I play a lot of golf and we usually finish on the 19th hole (there are 18 holes on a golf course for those non-golfers). I noticed the mudflaps too, why they think that objectifying each other as sex objects is progressive I’ll never know.
Forgive me, but the phrase, “I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person” comes to mind.
Lauren at 11:01: I agree with your proposed terminology! Allan Guttemacher in his description of a suction abortion explains that the abortionist monitors the tube, to ensure the complete evacuation of the “products of conception”. Who is not a product of conception? Granted, I seem to have misplaced my placenta, but perhaps I could sound chic by saying I’m a product of conception sans placenta.
klyn, there are times when it’s very appropriate to talk about the “products of conception” — and that’s when you’re including all possible outcomes of conception, to wit, hydatidiform moles (molar pregnancy), blighted ovum, and a new human being.
There are times when discussing the physiology of pregnancy it’d be appropriate to use the broader term, since you’re not always talking about a baby.
But of course, that’s not what abortion proponents mean. They’re not trying to include abnormal POCs. They’re trying to redefine the normal result of conception — a baby — as being a thing.
So, saying, “With ultrasound you can examine the products of conception to diagnose a viable pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, or blighted ovum.” isn’t misusing the term. But “We gently remove the products of conception” when you know full well you mean BABY is obfuscating.
Jeff at November 11, 2008 12:39 PM
——-
I always thought they meant it as advertising!
5th quarter… 19th hole… fabulous!
Also, thanks for the info on the bonafide 4th trimester lit, Prolifer L.
Sandy, thanks, and congrats on the puppy… :)
Kim had to let me know, “‘Tri’ means three.”
LOL! Now there is someone who really doesn’t “get it”.
Too funny!
Jill,
For those who doubt that there’s such a thing as a fourth trimester, can you please re-post the infamous video where Obama refers to the already born baby as a “fetus”? Thanks.
Go Janet!! :)
I’m a childbirth educator and I hear the term “4th Trimester” all the time referring to the first three months outside the womb. The term has recently gained a lot of popularity thanks to Dr. Harvey Karp and his book “The Happiest Baby On The Block.” Jill, if you want to find a direct quote go here anc look under FAQ’s. http://www.thehappiestbaby.com/ Just goes to show that it’s not exclusively a pro-life term.
It’s obvious that those that are pro-abortion are just playing dumb. Unfortunately, ignorance is not an excuse.
Keep up the good work, Jill!!!!
Ann Coulter has used the term as well.
A fetus is defined as “offspring”. It doesn’t end being an offspring upon either arrival or being taken to a nursery.
Posted by: xppc at November 11, 2008 10:41 AM
_____
The fetus is not offspring. It has not yet sprung off. It starts being offspring at birth. “In the womb, after the second month of gestation” (for humans) – something like that.
“Obama supports 1 step beyond that, shelving abortion survivors to die.”
That’s just silly, hysterical stuff.
That’s just silly, hysterical stuff.
It would be, if it weren’t true. josh, I don’t know if you’re aware of who Jill is, but she actually experienced this first hand.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm
When a woman is 3 weeks overdue with her baby is she in the 4th trimester?
“Silliest of all was Kim’s inability to grasp the meaning of my hyperbolic (‘a figure of speech that is an exaggeration’) use of the terminology ‘4th trimester’ abortions in the 1st paragraph, to describe, as I explained in the 2nd paragraph, Barack Obama’s support of ‘abandoning abortion survivors to die.'”
Sarcasm is wasted on the stupid.
I went to the feministing site and read the full article and comments there. I am a new poster so please be kind to me. I am on the pro life side so I feel a bit safer here. Anyway. I read a comment over there that refers to the BAIPAs as “medically ridiculous”. I know there are pro choice people here too so this may be more your question. What would be the harm in caring for or trying to safe an infant that could survive outside of the womb? I believe President Elect Obama thinks this puts an undue burden on the woman and the doctor. In my mind, I don’t care if it is an extra burden because (hello) there is a living, breathing infant that is, or at least in my opinion, constitutionally protected. But how could we improve the bills so they would not seem ridiculous to you or a burden or whatever while still helping infants born alive after an abortion?
Phyl: “I would add an ethics class to that list, Jill. Since you’re still lying about Barack Obama’s position on late term abrtion, I see.
What part of ‘the state can properly restrict late-term abortions’ do you not understand?”
We’ve posted the YouTube link in which Obama argued that protecting a newborn who survived a failed abortion attempt would amount to a “burden” on the mother. What part of THAT did YOU not understand?
Lisa, exactly! Those babies are supposed to be constitutionally protected. Even those feminists should know that! Anytime a child is left to die alone, that is an illegal and unconstitutional action, because (as the pro-abortionists like to remind us when we refer to the unborn as persons):
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Hi Lisa. No worries, you are quite safe here :) But I do admit, I am often terrified to even read Feministing or Feministe… So welcome, nice to have you. God love you.
Thanks very much. I don’t know how often I can post comments but I’ve been reading the blogs and subscribed to NRLC in the past few weeks. I’m trying to see if I can be more active but it’s hard. Will check back in the morning.
Josh :”The fetus is not offspring. It has not yet sprung off. It starts being offspring at birth. “In the womb, after the second month of gestation” (for humans) – something like that.”
Look up the definition of offspring. It means progeny, or alternativly, fetus.
Words arent necessarily divined by the words they are made of.
Bookworm. Is it a worm made of books? Is it a worm that lives in books? How about a person who is fond of reading.
I would end with a pejorative, but thats looked down upon here. Ill just leave it at that.
Ahhh what the hell…youre a moron Josh.
New York Times
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
“THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal….”
———————————————-
Gee, did we redact the Declaration of Independence? Is there a provision in the US Constitution for amending the Declaration?
I could have sworn that Jefferson’s words were …self evident all men are created equal…
There is big difference between ‘created equal’ and ‘born equal’.
Evidently algore did not get the o’bama talking points on the exception to being ‘born equal’ for human fetuses surviving a failed abortion.
Abortion is defined as the purposeful interruption of pregnancy with desired result to be other than a live birth.
Only those interested in missing the point, do. ‘Feministing’ misses the point and goes to great lenghts to do so.
yor bro ken
As to the mud flapesque female silhouettes.
Evidently, ‘Feministing’ must represent the coyote wing of the feminista movement. They seem to completely cast off restraint of any kind when it comes to the ‘physical autonomy’ of their female form.
This must be an example of that unlimited ‘physical autonomy’ that Danielle writes about.
It is the predictable next step in the devolution of the feminista movement. No one dare judge, much less limit what they do with their bodies, not even other less liberated feministas.
In the 90’s the feministas in British Columbia, Canada announced they were going to parade topless through the streets of downtown Vancouver to protest misogynistic laws against such displays.
But the law of unintended consequences insinuated itself into the situation, and once notified by the preparade publicity, men with cameras lined both sides of the streets and the feministas were confronted with a conundrum of their own creation.
In an attempt to liberate themselves from the male dominated society, that had volunterily objectified themselves once again.
Having thus rained on their own parade, the feministas aborted it prematurely.
yor bro ken
I find you to be an exception, Doug (not the only one). You’re willing to try and argue against our objections head-on, rather than ignore something we say to concentrate on what term we are using, and of course, I give you props for that.
Thanks, Bobby.
Hey, did you see that Brian May, founder and guitarist of the rock group Queen, completed his doctorate in Astrophysics? Awesome….
Arguing over subjective terminology is a waste of time, IMO.
Gee, did we redact the Declaration of Independence? Is there a provision in the US Constitution for amending the Declaration?
I could have sworn that Jefferson’s words were …self evident all men are created equal…
Ken, the DOI has no force of law in the US, does it?
It was white, male landowners in the Colonies basically telling King George to screw off….
When a woman is 3 weeks overdue with her baby is she in the 4th trimester?
Carla, if we go with “trimester” meaning three months, then heck yes.
Doug, 6:29, everytime you say heck yes, this comes to mind…cracks me up:
Those babies are supposed to be constitutionally protected.
Bethany, that’s right. Born = rights.
I don’t think standards of palliative care come directly from that, though.
The BAIPA doesn’t specify any given levels of care, either, does it?
Doug, the point of the BAIPA is “don’t intentionally leave them to die”. Obviously, this is what was happening, which is why there was a need to fight against it.
I mean, how heartless is it, to see a baby who is struggling to live, and then to just lay it in a corner somewhere to painfully expire? Who could do that?
But people do it. There are apparently some really stone cold hearts out there.
Josh :”The fetus is not offspring. It has not yet sprung off. It starts being offspring at birth. “In the womb, after the second month of gestation” (for humans) – something like that.”
Oliver: Look up the definition of offspring. It means progeny, or alternativly, fetus.
Oliver, where do you see that offspring means fetus, alternatively? I went through the definitions at dictionary.com and didn’t see it. There may be some dictionaries that do say it……?
In the Old English offspring was literally “those who spring off (someone).”
It just makes sense that the unborn have not yet sprung off.
“Progeny” doesn’t necessarily mean “baby,” nor (of course) “fetus.”
“1398, from L. fetus “the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young,” from L. base *fe- “to generate, bear,” also “to suck, suckle” (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of “offspring, brood” (cf. “Germania quos horrida parturit fetus,” Horace), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of “fruit, produce, shoot.” The adj. fetal was formed in Eng. 1811. The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.”
Looks to me like in Latin “fetus” got some stuff mixed in with it, post-birth, but that is not saying that “offspring” would necessarily apply in reverse (before birth).
Napoleon Dynamite: Grandma just called and said you’re supposed to go home.
Uncle Rico: She didn’t tell me anything.
Napoleon Dynamite: Too bad, she said she doesn’t want you here when she gets back because you’ve been ruining everybody’s lives and eating all our steak.
Doug,
The point was that algore referred to the declaration of independence then arbitrarily changed the phrase.
I can only speculate as to why he did it and why he chose the words he did.
Why not just cut a paste the phrase exactly like it appears in the declaration?
But the other point is, even with the modification the phrase is out of sync with the progressing vision of the o’bama concerning abortion and the guarantee of the desired outcome, even when the child is alive and outside the uterus. Even being born does not guarantee equality in the o’bama (pbuh) alternate reality.
yor bro ken
Doug, the point of the BAIPA is “don’t intentionally leave them to die”. Obviously, this is what was happening, which is why there was a need to fight against it.
Bethany, agreed – “codify it into law,” as Jill said.
Still, though, when a baby is going to die, then there is the issue of how much care, and of what type, exactly, to give them, and BAIPA doesn’t address that. I wonder if there is any type of somewhat “uniform code,” even if unofficial, among hospitals.
As far as palliative care, Obama hasn’t said anything against it, and I think it’s silly to act like he would be against it.
The mud flapesque female silhouettes that ‘Feministing’ uses for an icon are flipping the bird.
That is a variation from Dougs chrome metal mamas.
Hell has no fury like a feminista scorned.
yor bro ken
I mean, how heartless is it, to see a baby who is struggling to live, and then to just lay it in a corner somewhere to painfully expire? Who could do that?
Bethany, again, agreed 100%. I’m really surprised that it happened at Jill’s hospital.
The point was that algore referred to the declaration of independence then arbitrarily changed the phrase.
Ken, indeed, it doesn’t say “born equal.” Obviously, at the time of the writing of the DOI, born people in the Colonies were not equal, far from it, in fact.
The “created equal” was really addressing white, male landowners – the ones whose objections led to the whole deal.
Women and minorities weren’t “equal” with the white, male landowners at the time, and there’s nothing that says the writers of the DOI had the unborn in mind there, either.
Doug,
Suggest you do a little refresher on american history. Not all of the states allowed slavery. That is why there was a civil war. Not all black men in the south were slaves. The slavery thing was arbitrary, full of written and unwritten rules.
Seriously, you can fully understand the declaration of independence or the constitution and it’s amendments without understanding the times when they were authored.
Fredrick Douglas, escaped slave, brilliant mind, wrote several books, served in several presidential administrations. Suggest you at least look him up on wikipedia. Will give you a fuller perspective of our history.
yor bro ken
Doug,
Well today Doug, women and minorities do have a guarantee of equal rights. And though you may choose to disenfranchise prenatal human beings, for this discussion it is irrelevant.
We are talking about ‘born human beings’, persons, in the 21st century. I hope you are not appealing to the bigotries of the past to justify the bigotries of the present.
yor bro ken
Today is my older sister’s birthday. She was a MONTH overdue, so technically she was a “4th” trimester baby.
Good one Liz! Happy birthday to your sister. :)
Suggest you do a little refresher on american history.
Ken – what I said is true – when the DOI was written, it was not with intent to apply it to the unborn – there’s nothing there about that – nor did women or minorities have actual “created equal” status.
Well today Doug, women and minorities do have a guarantee of equal rights. And though you may choose to disenfranchise prenatal human beings, for this discussion it is irrelevant.
Sigh. Ken, “disenfranchise” does not apply.
“Suggest you do a little refresher on american history. Not all of the states allowed slavery. That is why there was a civil war. Not all black men in the south were slaves. The slavery thing was arbitrary, full of written and unwritten rules.”
Yes, all of the states DID allow slavery. Maybe you need a refresher on American History.
African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant’s Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. William Henry Seward, Lincoln’s anti-slavery Secretary of State during the Civil War, born in 1801, grew up in Orange County, New York, in a slave-owning family and amid neighbors who owned slaves if they could afford them. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.
Here’s the website, if you want to see the whole thing: http://www.slavenorth.com/
Doug: “Oliver, where do you see that offspring means fetus, alternatively? I went through the definitions at dictionary.com and didn’t see it. There may be some dictionaries that do say it……?”
I must be mistaken…I thought I had a definition from the last time someone tried to make a case here about the meaning of the word offspring.
Doug: “In the Old English offspring was literally “those who spring off (someone).”
It just makes sense that the unborn have not yet sprung off.”
It depends on what you mean by “spring” if you really want to get into semantics, as Josh started above. One definition is “to come into being.” If you can establish that a fetus has come into being, you could argue that the fetus has into “come into being” off of the mother’s own being, or DNA. This route of course leads us down to the ultimate point, whether or not a fetus is indeed a person.
Of course, that isnt necessary to point out that offspring is indeed a valid use for a preborn.
Doug: “”Progeny” doesn’t necessarily mean “baby,” nor (of course) “fetus.””
Foil doesnt necessarily mean “sword.” Does that mean that it is an improper definition for that certain kind of sword? You are seemingly trying to assert that if a word has multiple definitions that you cannot ever apply it. You are seeming to suggest that because the word “progeny” could mean other things than baby, that it does not mean that. This logic would reduce almost every word to useless. I am sure you do not mean this.
That said, progeny can mean as simple as a word as “product” or “result.” A fetus, zygote, whatever certainly fits this definition. It is futher enhanced by the fact that progeny is also defined as “descendent” which means to have originated from something.
All this is semantic horse**** though. You could argue that nothing fits a words definition. The point of language is to convey ideas. It is clear that a fetus is an offspring of the parents. The fact that we are having this argument is stupifying.
Doug: “”1398, from L. fetus “the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young,” from L. base *fe- “to generate, bear,” also “to suck, suckle” (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of “offspring, brood” (cf. “Germania quos horrida parturit fetus,” Horace), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of “fruit, produce, shoot.” The adj. fetal was formed in Eng. 1811. The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.”
Looks to me like in Latin “fetus” got some stuff mixed in with it, post-birth, but that is not saying that “offspring” would necessarily apply in reverse (before birth).”
Who cares? We all know what the point of the word offspring is in current usage. We all know what a child is, which by the way, is the word that is defined as a fetus. It is defined as “unborn person” or “unborn offspring” which implies quite lovely that offsprings can be unborn. It also is defined as “fetus.” The point is, we all know what these words mean. The reason people want to make a big stink about the semantics is that they cant bring themselves to admit what abortion is doing. Whether or not you argee with the morality, and whether or not you agree with the definition of personhood, you have to admit that an preborn is in fact a child/offspring/progeny/etc.
It is quite stupid to argue otherwise and is a window into the stubborness associated with the pro-choice stance.
The point of language is to convey ideas.
Simple and profound at the same time. :)
Also, Ken, the DOI is not a governing document of the United States.
The feminists are asleep. I watched a clip of a young female Muslim attorney in the middle east say there are no sexual harassment laws. If Muslim men rape Jewish women, the Jews will leave.
Leave The Land So We Won’t Rape You” : (hat tip Jane)
Female Egyptian Lawyer. Mature Aired on Al-Arabiya TV (Dubai/Saudi Arabia) – October 31, 2008 – 00:02:10 : Egyptian Lawyer Nagla Al-Imam Suggests Arab Men Should Sexually Harass Israeli Women and Declares: Leave the Land So We Won’t Rape You.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Monday the 10th video
These are Obamas pals.
Oliver: It depends on what you mean by “spring” if you really want to get into semantics, as Josh started above. One definition is “to come into being.” If you can establish that a fetus has come into being, you could argue that the fetus has into “come into being” off of the mother’s own being, or DNA. This route of course leads us down to the ultimate point, whether or not a fetus is indeed a person.
Springing off was “issuing forth” or being born. The baby “springs off” the mother, so to speak. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and while there may be some usage of “offspring” with respect to the unborn, it’s 180 degrees away from where the word came from.
Personhood is an attributed status.
…..
We all know what the point of the word offspring is in current usage. We all know what a child is, which by the way, is the word that is defined as a fetus. It is defined as “unborn person” or “unborn offspring” which implies quite lovely that offsprings can be unborn. It also is defined as “fetus.” The point is, we all know what these words mean.
For “child” dictionary.com has the first definition being “a person between birth and full growth.” So in no way is a fetus necessarily a child. While we indeed “know” that after birth “child” applies, we don’t all agree that it applies prior to birth.
I’m not saying it’s strictly incorrect to say “unborn child,” but presenting it as if it’s a meaningful argument in the abortion debate is false – it’s a subjective thing, it’s up to the user, in the eye of the beholder, etc.
Oliver: Whether or not you argee with the morality, and whether or not you agree with the definition of personhood, you have to admit that an preborn is in fact a child/offspring/progeny/etc.
“Progeny” isn’t at issue, here. But as above, it’s not “in fact” that the preborn are children. Some people feel that way, and there’s enough usage that the dictionary does list it as an alternate definition, but it’s as valid or moreso to hold that a child is after birth.
Relating “offspring” to the unborn through “child,” for example, neglects that “child” doesn’t have to mean the unborn. While children will always be offspring, the unborn don’t have to be “children.”
While children will always be offspring, the unborn don’t have to be “children.”
Posted by: Doug at November 11, 2008 10:53 PM
***************************************
Yeah, that’s right, they can just be called “POCs” or “medical waste.”
Do they, or do they not have fully human DNA, separate from their parents (oh, oops, am I not allowed to use the term “parents”)? Do they or do they not have fingers, toes, eyes, ears, skulls (that must be crushed, of course), legs, and arms, etc.? Are they or are they not living?
All of this semantic discussion is NAUSEATING.
I can see why people have the perverse need to insist repeatedly that the unborn do not have rights and “are not persons” but that does not change the fact that these “POCs” are human. If anyone’s got a better idea of what they are, please explain. I’d love to know.
We are outnumbered by the killing society. I voted for personhood at conception. I can’t believe it was defeated by so much. I never thought it would win, you know with only us wacko pro-lifers supporting it, but I thought it would be closer since it was a statewide vote.
I have a Catholic neighbor who votes liberal and pro-choice because there should b an exception if the woman’s life is at risk. When has a doctor ever told anyone that giving birth would kill them? AND if that really has happened, I’ve only had 3 children so it didn’t come up for me, but what mother would take her babies life before her own?
Ridiculous. Mothers haven’t died in childbirth probably since the early 1900’s. And if they do, how is it predicted by a doctor?
Sick of the pro-choice excused to kill. Lets just legalize “justified (in our own minds) murder” all the way around, you know, for an ex-boyfriend, bad boss, ugly neighbor.
Also wanted to add to your thoughts kmasitti when is it EVER medically necessary to kill the baby to save the life of the mother??
Jill, the evil that inhabits the pro-abortion supporters is nothing less than demonic. They cannot, will not, admit to wrong. They kill babies, we all know it. Not only the medical staff, but ALL SUPPORTERS of this practice are guilty and will face punishment from God above. Our Heavenly Father sees all. One day, these scoffers will have a huge “uh-oh” moment as they are cast into a burning hell. So be it, they’ve been warned. Especially those who troll here to bug you. I applaud you and your efforts, and I thank you for being a voice for the unborn victims. God bless and keep you Jill.
“One day, these scoffers will have a huge “uh-oh” moment as they are cast into a burning hell.”
That will be very very interesting…..
I think the “trucker mud flap” logo characterizes them quite nicely. I always think “bimbo” when I see it . . .
I am sorry for them if they couldn’t (translated ‘were not able to’) comprehend the simple humor/horror of the 4th trimester abortion idea. My question is, are they really this challenged or are they just hateful?
Very embarrassing.
kmasitti, Carla,
What BUGS me
are CATHOLIC
and CHRISTIAN
PHYSICIANS
who VOTE
pro-CHOICE.
THEY
UNDERSTAND
the BIOLOGY!!!!
They SHOULD
KNOW better!!!!
kmasitti @ 7:41 AM,
Sick of the pro-choice excused to kill. Lets just legalize “justified (in our own minds) murder” all the way around, you know, for an ex-boyfriend, bad boss, ugly neighbor.
Using the bodily autonomy argument so frequently mentioned by PC’rs, I think killing one’s boss could be justified if he’s always on your back.
Don’tcha just love it when their ignorance, arrogance and hatred sets up the volley so perfectly for you to slam them back with a big ‘DUH!!!’?
I hope you sent them all a nice little note thanking them for illustrating perfectly the point you were trying to make.
Is it wrong to feel some sense of childish satisfaction when they show so very clearly who the ‘idiots’ are? *sigh*
Doug: “I’m not saying it’s strictly incorrect to say “unborn child,” but presenting it as if it’s a meaningful argument in the abortion debate is false – it’s a subjective thing, it’s up to the user, in the eye of the beholder, etc.”
This in a nutshell exposes the heart of Josh’s, and now apparently your, flaw.
It is in fact a subjective thing. It is not incorrect to call a preborn an “un born child” because the definition of the words are in fact correct and apply correctly. Now I will say that child does not NECESSARILY apply to a preborn, but it doesnt need to be.
You have to examine the perspective that you two are using. You are claiming that our usage is not correct, which implies that it MUST always be FALSE to use this definition. You are proving that statement by saying that it COULD be FALSE because the words dont necessarily refer to how we are using them. These are two very different concepts, that admitedly can easily be confused. The word foil is a great example of this error.
Foil is not necessarily defined as a sword. It is not necessarily defined as a comedic counterpart. It is not necessarily defined as an tin sheet often used to prepare food. However, it is proper to use the word in any of these cases. In other words, it COULD be FALSE to refer to a sword as “foil” if the sword was indeed A foil, if you meant the word foil in the sense of a comedic counterpart. However, the usage of foil COULD also be TRUE if you have the same intended meaning.
So in other words, child can mean “between birth and adulthood” and it can also mean “fetus” or “unborn offspring” or “unborn child.”
Josh, and you, have no leg to stand on to claim that it is incorrect to refer to a preborn as a child.
By the way, Merriam Webster has this as the first definition of child.
“1 a: an unborn or recently born person bdialect : a female infant”
I think Merriam Webster is at least as legitimate of a source as “dictionary.com” if not moreso.
Also, you claim that the “original purpose” of offspring was strictly to “spring off.” I disagree. The meaning was to refer to the progeny or descendent of a person or thing. They used the words “spring” and “off” to describe the sometimes physical and sometimes philosophical relationship. It isnt “180” degrees from the original meaning. If anything, neither of us can be certain, so its foolish to claim so.
The stupid part is that we all know we are talking about here. A preborn is a different human from their parent that has descended genetically from them. This is the meaning of child. Whether or not the child is attached to the parent has no real meaning when it comes to the connotation of the usage. It doesnt prove anything in the abortion debate either way, but you are both jackasses for claiming that our usage of the words is improper. It is obvious, if not by intuition, then by bull**** semantics.
“Mothers haven’t died in childbirth probably since the early 1900’s.”
Mothers die in childbirth all the time. In most cases, having an abortion in no way would help.. since it’s the process of childbirth that can kill women.. but, still, women die from childbirth all the time.
Carla, according to my dad.. there are cases (they’re rare) where the baby is basically taking ALL of the mother’s nutrients and the mother’s body can’t support the baby’s life. Also, if the mother has heart problems she’s unaware of the baby could also kill her. It sometimes does come down to aborting the baby or the baby and the mother both dying. He did say there is no case he can think of where a late-term abortion is actually helpful for the mother, because in most cases where the baby is harming the mother, the pregnancy can’t last to the third trimester.
Janet, my dad is a Catholic physician. He voted Obama. He’s pro-life, he just thinks the country needs Obama. However, he doesn’t know one other doctor at the hospital or at his private practice that is pro-life.
Kel: Do they, or do they not have fully human DNA, separate from their parents (oh, oops, am I not allowed to use the term “parents”)? Do they or do they not have fingers, toes, eyes, ears, skulls (that must be crushed, of course), legs, and arms, etc.? Are they or are they not living?
All of this semantic discussion is NAUSEATING. I can see why people have the perverse need to insist repeatedly that the unborn do not have rights and “are not persons” but that does not change the fact that these “POCs” are human. If anyone’s got a better idea of what they are, please explain. I’d love to know.
Kel, yes, human DNA, living organisms, etc., – no argument there. But “child” is still a stage of development. We quit being children at some stage, 18, 21, etc., – you and I can agree on that, I think. Where we don’t agree is when it starts applying. “Between birth and full growth,” or “between birth and puberty” etc., are the primary definitions in many dictionaries.
I’ve said numerous times that arguing over subjective terms is a waste of time.
I don’t say that it’s incorrect to say that the unborn are “children” since there’s been enough usage with respect to the unborn that (some) dictionaries have it that way.
My point is that it’s in the eye of the beholder; that it’s at least as correct to say “not a child” as it is to say “is a child.”
Insisting, either way, is what’s wrong.
Janet, my dad is a Catholic physician. He voted Obama. He’s pro-life, he just thinks the country needs Obama. However, he doesn’t know one other doctor at the hospital or at his private practice that is pro-life.
Posted by: Josephine at November 12, 2008 4:41 PM
That is very depressing.
Does he respect “doctors” who do abortions?
No, he doesn’t respect doctors who do abortions at all.
Josephine,
Do you or your dad have any stats on how many mothers have died in childbirth in recent years?
I absolutely know that a pregnancy can literally be killing the mother. Happened to a friend of mine. She didn’t want the doctors to kill her child(PBA?) but her water broke, the baby was delivered and died a short time later, nature took it’s course. I would hope that a doctor would try to save the lives of both of his patients.
About PBA, how is it ever medically necessary? For the health of the mother to go in for a 3 Day procedure, deliver a baby partially, stab it in the back of the head and suck out its brains to collapse the skull? A mother can get to the nearest emergency room and have that baby delivered.
Any thoughts?
Oliver: This in a nutshell exposes the heart of Josh’s, and now apparently your, flaw.
It is in fact a subjective thing. It is not incorrect to call a preborn an “un born child” because the definition of the words are in fact correct and apply correctly. Now I will say that child does not NECESSARILY apply to a preborn, but it doesnt need to be.
Oliver, I’ve never said it’s incorrect to call the unborn “children” – all along I too have said it’s a subjective deal. I don’t think Josh said anything about “child” either.
…..
By the way, Merriam Webster has this as the first definition of child.
“1 a: an unborn or recently born person bdialect : a female infant”
Okay, well good – I thought it’d come up before, and that’s why I asked.
Dictionary.com is no slouch – it’s based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
It also gives definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary and the American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary.
…..
Also, you claim that the “original purpose” of offspring was strictly to “spring off.” I disagree. The meaning was to refer to the progeny or descendent of a person or thing. They used the words “spring” and “off” to describe the sometimes physical and sometimes philosophical relationship. It isnt “180” degrees from the original meaning. If anything, neither of us can be certain, so its foolish to claim so.
Well, here’s what I see:
From the Old English: “ofspring “children or young collectively, descendants,” literally “those who spring off (someone,)” from off + springan “to spring,” The figurative sense did not appear until much later.
……
Okay – “foil” can be a sword, but it doesn’t have to be, and thus a comedic counterpart isn’t necessarily logically a sword, from that.
“Child” can be the unborn, but again – doesn’t have to be, and thus my objection to linking “offspring” to the unborn through “child” – since it doesn’t necessarily apply.
There may be “gray areas” here, and I won’t beat this into the ground, but it’d be different if dictionaries said “fetus” or the unborn for “offspring” or vice-versa.
……
The stupid part is that we all know we are talking about here. A preborn is a different human from their parent that has descended genetically from them. This is the meaning of child. Whether or not the child is attached to the parent has no real meaning when it comes to the connotation of the usage.
No, “child” is a stage of development – that’s the sense that the argument is over. Don’t we agree that we stop being “children” as far as development, when we attain full growth, or turn 18 years old, 21, etc? All the primary definitions that say “between birth and…” follow that.
Agreed that the unborn are the “biological issue” of the parents, but that remains true even in old age, heck, even after death.
My textbook stats are for 2007, and according to it, of the 4,500,000+ births there were approximately 50 deaths. It was the strain of childbirth or pre-existing conditions.
I’m not sure why you’re asking about PBA, since I already explained that: “He did say there is no case he can think of where a late-term abortion is actually helpful for the mother”
If you can have a partial birth abortion, you’re probably able to have the baby. According to him, most women who have legit medical problems abort the baby early on in the pregnancy.
What would be some legit medical problems?
Everything I’m saying was in my original post:
there are cases (they’re rare) where the baby is basically taking ALL of the mother’s nutrients and the mother’s body can’t support the baby’s life. Also, if the mother has heart problems she’s unaware of the pregnancy could also kill her.
In cases like those different things can happen: the mother can abort the baby which sometimes can’t fix the problems, the mother can risk letting the baby grow but this could kill the mother and baby both, or the mother dies and (hopefully) the baby can live on support. I don’t mean to say that there are cases where they both live: of course there are.
Wow, am I really that hard to understand? ha
Thanks and Good night, Josephine.
Mathematically it is correct to say 4th trimester.
EXAMPLE:
3 halves of a pie = 1.5 pies.
Tom, correct only if it’s defined as a fixed period of time, like three months. Months ten through twelve would then indeed be the fourth trimester.
Otherwise, the definition is usually one-third of a given thing, school year, pregnancy, etc., and then three-thirds is it, nothing else.
Okay, Doug. At least I *think* we can agree that abortion actually takes the life of a human being. Call that human being what you will, it’s still a human being.
BTW, I’m still my mother’s child, and always will be. Moms have a way of letting us know that when we get out of line, even as adults. ;)
Doug:” No, “child” is a stage of development – that’s the sense that the argument is over. Don’t we agree that we stop being “children” as far as development, when we attain full growth, or turn 18 years old, 21, etc? All the primary definitions that say “between birth and…” follow that.
Agreed that the unborn are the “biological issue” of the parents, but that remains true even in old age, heck, even after death.”
My parents refer to me as “my child.” It is common usage to talk about your “children” when you are refering to your descendents, younf or old. You wouldnt ask your co worker “how are your progeny Ted?” It has two meanings, so it is correct in both cases.
If I refer to a 80 year old man as a child in the sense than someone reproduced him from their DNA, then it is a correct usage. If I say a preborn is a child to emphasis the fact that a preborn is in fact someone’s child, and that the parent is in fact destroying their child through abortion, it isnt a sensationalistic appeal. It is a true fact. A mother kills her child, whether or not it is justified, when she has an abortion.
By the way, Josh did in fact say “you cannot call a preborn offspring,” which through your own definition, proves that you can. They are in fact your descendents.
When did ‘Fundie’, as in Fundamentalist, become a respectable term? Yikes!
I also love that crusaders like you, who use inflammatory and hostile language in your post towards those you disagree with, get so huffy when the tables are turned on you (which is, really, the mark of a fundamentalist).
If you can’t stand the heat…
Oliver, 3:37 p.m. – “By the way, Josh did in fact say “you cannot call a preborn offspring,”
Right, Oliver. They don’t “spring off” until birth – that’s where the word originated.
~~
Oliver – ‘It is in fact a subjective thing. It is not incorrect to call a preborn an “un born child”
That’s not the same as saying “offspring” but I do agree on that. So we have maybe/maybe not for “child” before birth. “Offspring” is more far-fetched than that.
Tom – “3 halves of a pie = 1.5 pies.”
Then you’d have the pie, and part of another pie. For pregnancies you can do the same thing, but it’s not a “4th trimester” then, or “the third half” of a pregnancy, it’s just another pregnancy.
Josh: “Right, Oliver. They don’t “spring off” until birth – that’s where the word originated.”
Right, because we only use words by how they originated. I mean, we should only reference the earliest known etymology, and then take the strictest application of those words.
Idiot.
The current usage of the word offspring means progeny or descendent or child. All three of these are accurate in application to a preborn.
But lets play your game…
Spring off. Spring means to issue forth. Off means to not be on. Combined together we can say that a preborn issues forth from a mother’s and father’s DNA to no longer be “on” the same DNA strand. Or we can claim that the preborn is the issuing forth both of the sperm and egg from both parents. In both cases the egg and sperm become separate entities and are no longer “on” the parents. They may be “in” but I think considering we are playing your game, you can clearly see they are different.
Once again, youre an idiot.
Also, look up “4th trimester” there buddy. Heck, you can just google it. Its a commonly used reference to speak of the time, (I would guess 3 months) just after the pregnancy. There are several books with this as the title, let alone the concept.
If I refer to a 80 year old man as a child in the sense than someone reproduced him from their DNA, then it is a correct usage. If I say a preborn is a child to emphasis the fact that a preborn is in fact someone’s child, and that the parent is in fact destroying their child through abortion, it isnt a sensationalistic appeal. It is a true fact. A mother kills her child, whether or not it is justified, when she has an abortion.
Oliver, as before, that the descendants are the issue of the parents isn’t at argument.
To say the 80 year old man is somebody’s child is always correct, at least until such time as if we have the technology to truly “create” DNA.
But there is the “stage of development” meaning to the term “child,” and that’s where the arguments start.
All the primary dictionary definitions that have it as between birth and some later time show that it’s at least as valid to say “not a child” prior to being born.
Oliver 11:45 PM
“Once again, youre an idiot.”
Sheesh. What a grouch.
~~
“Also, look up “4th trimester” there buddy. Heck, you can just google it. Its a commonly used reference to speak of the time, (I would guess3 months) just after the pregnancy. There are several books with this as the title, let alone the concept.”
Oh come now; Tom was talking about three halves of a pie. No matter how long a pregnancy lasts, the time can still be divided in two. You can’t have more than “two halves” of a pie or of a pregnancy. If you’ve got another half, then it’s another pie or another pregnancy.
You can go an infinite number of three month periods into the assumed future, calling them “trimesters,” but that’s not the pregnancy.
For “offspring,” Doug has a good point about the literal and figurative senses. Granted that we can say “his ideas were his offspring,” or that the zygote is the “offspring” biologically, but the literal springing-off is still missing.
The Offspring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7-E1qTVJgE