Left says proof of Right’s takeover: media uses “unborn child” over “fetus”
My heart leapt when I read the accusation by Political Research Associates, a group “devoted to the study and documentation of right wing political movements in the United States,” and which consults for “groups… organizing to oppose campaigns undertaken by the radical right,” in the May 20 Somerville News:
“The Christian right is so common now people don’t realize the degree to which it has become part of our thinking about the way things should be done,” [PRA co-founder and ACLU member Chip Berlet] said.
The parlance of the anti-choice movement, for example, has become institutionalized in Boston’s newspaper of record. “Unborn child is now used by the Boston Globe instead of fetus,” [senior researcher Pat] Chamberlain said.
My, such paranoia about a perfectly legitimate term.
However, a check of the Boston Globe revealed it has used “fetus” in articles 2,548 times dating back to 1979, when its archives listing began, and “unborn child” only 1,160 times. A check to see whether PRA’s fear is a recent development showed BG has used “fetus” 39 times in 2007 and “unborn child” 33 times. So, maybe so?
No, it appears BG may only use the term “unborn child” when “fetus” would sound ridiculous:
Julia Roberts plans to save money by dressing her unborn child in hand-me-downs and charity shop clothes. (May 4, 2007)
If you want to know if your marriage will work or what to name your unborn child and are looking for an alternative to laying out the tarot cards, reading the tea leaves, or heading to a psychic…. (April 27, 2007)
A man tried to hire someone to kill his unborn child after learning his ex-girlfriend was pregnant and about to give birth…. [Charles] Young indicated he wanted his ex-girlfriend injured in such a way that the unborn child would die, the sheriff said…. (Oct. 13, 2006)
Ridiculous is what PRA is if it thinks MSM is coming anywhere close to treating our topic with objectivity.
And PRA apparently needs researchers who don’t panic and lose their wits when reading “unborn child.”
[The April 27 photo of Roberts, pregnant with her third fetus, is courtesy of People.]
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.
LOL
This isn’t even an issue of editorial stylebooks — it’s an issue of grammar.
“Julia Roberts plans to save money by dressing her fetus in hand-me-downs and charity shop clothes.”
“Unborn child” implies the birth which would arguably precede the act of Ms. Roberts actually dressing the child. The problem, of course, is that “fetus” does not, in and of itself, imply birth (as any pro-choicer worth their rhetoric would be quick to point out). Therefore, apparently the ACLU wants the MSM to embrace styles which are not so much ambiguous as very clear: Ms. Roberts intends to clothe her fetus as such.
LMAO
But, Rasqual, think of the potential profits to be made in selling “fetal outfits” to all those pregnant celebrities!
Is it just me or does this group seem a bit…paranoid?
Is Julia calling her baby a fetus? I’m in the dark here.
You see, what they’re doing here is using the term unborn when they know that the child is “wanted”. Of course, when they talk about abortion, it’s never a unborn or preborn child, it’s always a fetus.
Plus, they go to great lenghts to avoid describing the actual abortion procedure at all.
It is as though PP is writing the columns for the Globe itself.
http://squaringtheglobe.blogspot.com/search/label/abortion
So Julia Roberts will be saving money by dressing her unborn child in hand-me-downs and charity shop clothes. Funny, but when I did the same thing it wasn’t considered a newsworthy event.
It seems like the entire Julia Roberts story would have made more sense if they had said something like “Upon his birth, Juila will dress her son in hand me downs.”
Even so, I agree with Mary that *this* is a good example of “not news”.
I guess the next news flash will be that Madonna has died her hair red.
“photo of Roberts, pregnant with her third fetus”
Haha … that got a good laugh out of me.
This is definitely “not news.” I, as a pro-choicer, don’t have a problem with the term “unborn child.”
My question is: do you have a problem with the term “fetus”? Because, as you say of “unborn child,” it is also a perfectly accurate term.
“I, as a pro-choicer, don’t have a problem with the term “unborn child.”
really? why not? do mean the fetus is an actual child? No, that can’t be…..
Jasper, are you trying to pick a fight with me or something? Because that made me laugh as well.
Does it bother you that I have no problem with the term? Would you prefer that I hate it?
You’re being ridiculous, I’m sorry.
please explain why you don’t have a problem with the term “unborn”. It’s not a tough question.
Oh my goodness. Ok, I’m going to humor you even though this is the most ridiculous opinion I have ever had to defend in my life.
The term “unborn” doesn’t bother me simply because it doesn’t. You’re right–it’s not tough! It’s something similar to the way the words “lotion” “paper” “doorknob” or “sock” don’t bother me. It has never occurred to be to let it annoy me.
I just do not care. I don’t let little things bug me. It actually makes my life amazing.
There you go, love.
Good, so you believe that life begins before birth, because it’s OK with you to use the term “unborn child”. when would you say life begins?
I cannot believe you are getting so much out of what I’m NOT saying. Jasper, I say exactly what I mean. I don’t write between the lines, so stop trying to read between them.
I would say life begins when the child leaves its mother’s uterus.
You will notice I said NOTHING before about when life began or whatever. This is a completely new topic of your invention.
“I would say life begins when the child leaves its mother’s uterus.”
So, some children are not living? the ones in womb?
Jasper, it sounds a lot to me like you’re trying to work me into a corner and make me try to have a problem with the term “unborn child.” It’s not going to work.
Yes. I believe that life begins once the child leaves the womb (and yes, I do know it is medically possible for a baby to survive outside of the womb before gestation is complete–I am not stupid).
No. I do not have a problem with the term “unborn child” and I never will, no matter how much you try to convince me that I should (why you are doing this, I am not sure).
I also don’t see anything wrong with the term “black people” even though I realize that the skin color is … well, gee, it’s rather more of a brown, isn’t it? Just an example.
What I don’t understand is why you’re trying to turn me against “unborn child.” Shouldn’t you be trying to turn me against abortion or something?
Now, I’ll be happy to continue this discussion with you later, however ridiculous. For the moment, though, I am going to go eat dinner with my host family.
Tchao. A tout à l’heure.
If you can dehumanize a subject, it becomes a choice and murdering it become more palatable.
Do not be surprised when satan comes as an angel of light in all his deception.
What, you think he wants you to understand what you are really doing?
Jasper:
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to convince a dishonest, self-deceived, person with a heart hardened by sin try to understand the truth when they really have no desire to see the light and apart from a life condition where they are at the end of themselves
Even Jesus (God Himself) couldn’t make the blind see without faith.
So, why try? Shake the dust off your boots my friend and move on.
Leah,
It’s very simple, I don’t understand why some body would use the term “child”, then turn around and say that the child is not living.
aren’t children living?
Satan has a really tight grip on the Pro-abortion people….he has them believing their own lies..
Yes, I agree HisMan, I guess all we can do is pray for them.
HisMan,
Get off your high horse. You have no right to condemn me, that right rests with God. It is to Him to judge my sins, and not you.
Jasper,
“I guess all we can do it pray for them.”
As disappointed as you may be that I don’t believe that “unborn child” is something to get worked up about, you may be pleased to discover that I find self-righteousness rather replusive.
As for the whole child vs. fetus conversation, I resite my example of the term “black” or even “white” people. No one’s skin is truly black or white, yet the terms are still used regularly. I am not offended by them.
I’ll pray for you too, my friend.
Leah,
Is a child living?
You’re trying to win this debate by word games. Yes, it’s an “unborn child.” Yes, abortion keeps the “unborn child” from being a born child. Like Leah said, she’s not stupid. We do not “believe our own lies.” We’re not lying to ourselves or you. Satan has nothing to do with it, although if he did, then it’s really not our fault anyway, I guess.
All,
there are no trick questions here. I’ll try again.
Leah,
Is a child living? if so, then why isn’t an unborn child living?
It’s living, then (if aborted, or miscarried) it’s not living. You think we don’t know that?
Oh my gosh, Hal, that is what I’ve been trying to say for the past hour and a half.
Yes, Jasper, a child is living. Stop trying to win. I have already explained it to you in every way I know how. Do you speak French? Would it be easier for me to do it that way? I don’t understand why you keep trying to work me into knots when I am telling you that it is not going to work.
You are wasting your energy.
Leah, they think if only we *understood* what abortion is, we would have to be against it. They don’t accept that we know what abortion is but don’t want the government to ban it. Only being possessed by the devil can explain our position in their eyes.
Hal, you understand very well what many of us feel. I certainly don’t understand how one can know that the unborn is an innocent living human being, and still support it.
I don’t think there is anything weird about the belief that people should be above justifying homocide for any reason.
Hal —
Oh so *that’s* what’s wrong with me. I’m possessed by the devil. That’d explain the voices in my head and the lapses of memory … or something.
Listen up, everyone: I KNOW what abortion is! I STILL do and I ALWAYS will support a woman’s right to choose!
I will also always accept the term “unborn child” AS WELL AS the term “fetus.” If it bothers you, I will kindly refer to it as a fetus when in front of you.
I’m sorry. I generally try to refrain from sarcasm in this setting, but I just find this entire discussion so ridiculous.
*homicide
“Yes, Jasper, a child is living”
so why isn’t an unborn child living? you’re words, not mine. these are very simple questions.
I’m just trying figure out why you don’t think an unborn child is living. why, exactly….
I don’t know why people get upset at very simple questions. I like simple questions….
we gave you very simple answers to your very simple questions, but you keep asking them.
An unborn child is living, no one said it isn’t. It’s living until and unless it’s aborted or miscarried. The debate is whether it’s “right” to keep living can be, or should be, enforced by the governement. I don’t think so, you do. simple
Oh, Jasper. Jasper, Jasper, Jasper.
My one, my only. I am not upset. I am just … so … confused as to why you keep asking these same questions and what your purpose is and how this all stemmed from me having no problem with the term “unborn child” and why you keep avoiding MY questions/demanding statements/things requiring a comment.
A child is living.
An unborn child is unborn … as in not born. Sorry–if you want, I’ll say fetus (doesn’t this usually go the other way?).
Whatever it is, it is not born. Since I believe that life begins after birth, I thus believe an unborn child to be not alive.
It’s like a math problem. A simple one. Comprenez?
It’s like a math problem. A simple one. Comprenez?
Yes, like 2 + 2 equals 5.
If you refuse to believe what biology teaches us about when a complex, individual human life begins, then of course…. it’s simple to make your own rules after that, and you can as easily state the human life doesn’t begin till birth as you can state that 2 + 2 = 5.
You know, I think even pro-lifers have birthdays. Not CONCEPTION days- birthdays. No one tends to tack on that extra supposed 9 months of ‘life’.
You know, I think even pro-lifers have birthdays. Not CONCEPTION days- birthdays. No one tends to tack on that extra supposed 9 months of ‘life’.
Of course we have birthdays. And our birthdays celebrate an event in our life. Birth was an important event in our life, just as conception was the event that brought us to be.
“You know, I think even pro-lifers have birthdays. Not CONCEPTION days- birthdays. No one tends to tack on that extra supposed 9 months of ‘life’. ”
yes, ironically in China they do. We should as well.
Ok. Stop twisting my words, thank you.
Obviously, biology and human life is extraordinarily complicated. I never said it wasn’t, so don’t say that I did.
I’ll say it one more time, even though I’ve said it several times already. I’ll put it in plain, simple English and say nothing about the difficulty of biology.
A child is living.
I believe that life begins at birth.
Unborn means “not born.”
Thus: I so not believe an unborn child is alive.
That–my beliefs, not biology–is simple math.
Yeah, isn’t China also the place where they force abortions and have massive rates of infanticide and exposure?
let’s see. Hal says an unborn child is living and Leah says it is not.
Leah, how does the child all of a sudden start to live when it moves from the mother womb to outside of it?
Leah, i did not twist your words. You stated:
Since I believe that life begins after birth, I thus believe an unborn child to be not alive.
It’s like a math problem. A simple one. Comprenez?
“That–my beliefs, not biology–is simple math.”
we’ll I’m with ya Leah. I believe dogs can fly.
so there, nobody can tell me different!
“Yeah, isn’t China also the place where they force abortions and have massive rates of infanticide and exposure?”
yea, it’s not saying much for China, is it….
Obviously, biology and human life is extraordinarily complicated. I never said it wasn’t, so don’t say that I did.
Actually, Biology makes this extremely simple. Once the sperm and ovum combine, they create a unique, complete, human being, which needs nothing but oxygen and nutrition in order to continue developing to birth and beyond. Biology is pretty clear about this.
A child is living.
Correct.
I believe that life begins at birth.
Incorrect, this is your attempt to disregard science.
Unborn means “not born.”
Correct.
Thus: I so not believe an unborn child is alive.
Based on 2 + 2 = 5.
Bethany, make up your mind. First you say biology is complicated to try to make me sound stupid, now you’re saying it’s simple to try to make me sound stupid.
NO! I have NEVER tried to disregard science, for heaven’s sake!
STOP twisting around my words and pulling my intentions out of thin air or WHATEVER you’re doing!
You people are impossible!
Jasper–how in the world should I know how a cihld begins to live? It’s one of God’s mysteries, which is what life such a wonder. We cannot KNOW. We simply have to believe. I am telling (and retelling, many times) my beliefs and you are inventing this nonsense out of it that I never implied and never said.
This is all very incredible, I must say.
Leah, read my post again. I didn’t say biology was complicated. I said that a human life is complex.
NO! I have NEVER tried to disregard science, for heaven’s sake!
If you disregard simple facts such as when life begins, you’re disregarding science. I’m not twisting your words, Leah.
Where is it found, in science or biology, that human life begins at birth? The simple fact, and the very accepted fact is that a separate human life, with it’s own unique DNA, etc, begins after the sperm and ovum unite in conception.
Lauren:
“Is it just me or does this group seem a bit…paranoid?”
?!?
Um . . . that would be the ACLU, don’t you think? I mean, who’s unnerved by people calling unborn children unborn children?
HELLO~?
Leah –
Now I’m curious. What is it that makes a human alive? Just leaving the womb? And how much of the unborn would have to leave the womb in order to be considered alive? 50%? 100%? Just the head?
I’m not trying to be deceptive in anyway. It’s just that I don’t understand how something can be alive and not alive at the same time. Why is birth the definitive factor in what is alive?
If the unborn is not alive and it is not dead, then what is it?
Bethany–
Biology is actually very complicated. But that is something completely different we could get into and I’m sure we’d end up agreeing.
But yes, human life is very complicated. My beliefs are not.
It is actually impossible to scientifically prove when life begins, so we are left to speculation. The only reason you call what you believe a “very accepted fact” is simply because you and people you are surrounded by believe the same.
Jasper–
Your dogs flying comment had no relevence to what we were saying.
Valerie–
If it is not alive but not dead it could be called nonliving. However, that is not accurate either, because clearly there’s something happening if it can move.
Like Bethany said, human life is very complicated. I don’t think any of us will ever understand it completely.
I will simply have to settle for calling the unborn child … unborn. Or a fetus, if Jasper would prefer.
Apologies for that snitty remark at the end. I just don’t understand …
First of all, Leah, if you aren’t totally sure, then why are you convinced that life begins at birth? Wouldn’t that also be up to speculation?
By the way, as for your idea that a separate human life does not begin at conception:
“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”
“This [ a zygote] highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 6th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998, p. 2, p. 18]
[Note: This text is used for medical students at the University of Nebraska Medical Center]
* * *
“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
* * *
“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
“I would say that among most scientists, the word
“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
A scientific textbook called
Leah,
do you think aborting a 39 week old fetus should be illegal? If so, why.
Thanks
Leah –
If something has brain wave activity, a hearbeat, can move, can respond to stimuli, and has a developing central nervous system then what is it?
If you are having problems understanding why we are asking questions, go here:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomboriginal/
It is national geographic, no a pro-life or pro-choice site with an agenda.
Leah,
Did I mention your name? Don’t think I did. Did you implicate yourself?
Hal,
Satan only tempts to sin, he is not responsible for our sin, we are. When we do sin, we are no different that him. The difference between a Christian who sins and a non-believer is that there’s a way to forgiveness for the believer.
If a person does not believe in Christ as the Son of God, the non-believing sinner’s father is the father of lies, satan himself. Satan then has a legal right to your soul since the Bible says, “the soul that sins shall surely die”. God said it, I didn’t.
So your theory that if satan is real sinners are not responsible indicates a lack of understanding of sin and individual responsibility.
You should study more. It would do you some good.
The way out is repentance and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord, authentic of course, not just mouthing the words.
Lauren:
“Upon his birth, Juila will dress her son in hand me downs.”
But that would be woefully pedantic (“well when the hell ELSE would she do it, geesh”). It was worded fine. The ACLU is paranoid, and proferred language that would have been ridiculous.
As for not being news, of COURSE it wasn’t. And that’s the paranoid aspect for the ACLU.
Leah:
“Yes. I believe that life begins once the child leaves the womb”
So before that it’s dead? Or inanimate — like a crystal? How does the geographic displacement of the fetus a few mere inches have this magical effect?
“You have no right to condemn me, that right rests with God. It is to Him to judge my sins, and not you.”
Give that excuse a shot with the next judge you’re standing in front of. ;-)
“You’re trying to win this debate by word games.”
Actually, it appeared as if you were trying to lose it by resorting to such. ;-)
“biology and human life is extraordinarily complicated”
Yes. How something that’s either dead or inanimate can become alive when geographically moved just a few inches, must indeed require as many epicycles as ptolemaic astronomy.
“how in the world should I know how a cihld begins to live? It’s one of God’s mysteries, which is what life such a wonder. We cannot KNOW. We simply have to believe”
So on the question of whether vulnerable members of the human family (I realize that’s begging the question for you) should be protected in law and welcome in life, you recommend a Peter Pan epistemology?
“It is actually impossible to scientifically prove when life begins,”
Oh? Have you proven that statement itself?
How can someone who admits things are so very complicated possibly imply that they know enough about the subject to be aware that proving it is scientifically impossible? Your knowledge would have to be exhaustive, or there must be some logical reason why such proof is not possible.
Barring the logical impossibility (and I can’t imagine what that would be), it’s beginning to look as if you’re arrogating knowledge you can’t possibly possess. And this from someone who claims a Peter Pan epistemology.
“Julia Roberts plans to save money by dressing her unborn child in hand-me-downs and charity shop clothes. ”
How is she going to get the hand-me-downs and charity shop clothes up into her uterus?
Rasqual beat you to it, SOMG. You were too late.
There’s a problem with Julia’s strategy for those who are concerned with social justice. What’s someone who can afford new clothes doing sharing demand for the supply of low-priced clothes?
This is similar to the new indulgences (carbon credits), where the wealthy don’t change their lifestyle but impact the supply of credits so that the poor cannot afford (in the unlikely case that they’d buy credits in the first place) them themselves.
Rasquel,
How right you are. What a farce. So Julia is going to humble herself, like she really needs to right? The Hollywood celebrities, whose idea of mass transit is 5 people in a limousine, preaching to the rest of us about our SUVs and electric bills. John Travolta has 5 private jets. These folks have how many private homes and multi-stall garages?
Since Sheryl Crow has recommended one sheet of toilet paper per bathroom vist, while she and her entourage drive around in diesel fueled tour buses, toilet paper credits may not be far behind. No pun intended.
Barbra Streisand has recommended using clotheslines instead of dryers. This from someone who hasn’t done a load of laundry in 40 years. I’ll use a clothesline the day I see Barbra’s undergarments flapping in the breezes of Malibu.
HisMan: “You should study more. It would do you some good.”
I admit I’m pretty ignorant of your brand of theology. I’m really okay with that. I probably sound uneducated about religion, and it’s true. There are things I’d rather study and devote my time to.