Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[catharina]

All human embryos are children/babies, but not all children/babies are embryos. Baby is not a scientific term, it only has meaning in the “street” or in “popular” vocabulary. Embryo, fetus, zygote are scientific terms, which baby can encompass if the embryo/fetus/zygote is of the human species. (Of course the dictionary also mentioned that young animals could also be called baby)

And yes it has been scientifically proven that human embryos/fetuses/zygotes are in fact human, having both a mother (ova donor) and a father (sperm donor), becoming a completely new human who is alive, thus a child and in that stage of life a baby. I don’t know what “facts” you seems to saying that haven’t been proven.

Thanks.

To make matters even more profound,
the Catholic Church calls all children
under the age of 8 years, “INFANTS.”

Make ya’ think, huh.

 

[Santi2]

Thanks.

To make matters even more profound,
the Catholic Church calls all children
under the age of 8 years, “INFANTS.”

Make ya’ think, huh.

And, primary schoolchildren in the 5- 6 age group over here are in Infant class as well. Reception, INFANT, Junior.

 

[catharina]

And, primary schoolchildren in the 5- 6 age group over here are in Infant class as well. Reception, INFANT, Junior.

Very sweet.

 

[LemonAndLime]

All human embryos are children/babies, but not all children/babies are embryos. Baby is not a scientific term, it only has meaning in the “street” or in “popular” vocabulary. Embryo, fetus, zygote are scientific terms, which baby can encompass if the embryo/fetus/zygote is of the human species. (Of course the dictionary also mentioned that young animals could also be called baby)

Well yes I agree, it is colloquial. But I thought we were talking about a dictionary definition of what the noun baby means, not how it is used.

And yes it has been scientifically proven that human embryos/fetuses/zygotes are in fact human, having both a mother (ova donor) and a father (sperm donor), becoming a completely new human who is alive, thus a child and in that stage of life a baby. I don’t know what “facts” you seems to saying that haven’t been proven.

So it has been scientifically proven that the correct word to use is baby? That was what I was on about - you cannot scientifically prove which word is the correct one to use. E.g. you cannot say child, you must say baby. Or - you cannot use the word zygote, it is scientifically incorrect, you must use the word baby. Choosing which word to use is not the domain of science.

And of course it is “scientifically proven” that human embryos are human. It’s just a little bit ridiculous that you think it’s necessary to declare this fact. But thank you, because all this time I thought that pregnant women had a rather large plant growing inside them.

 

[jilly4ski]

Well yes I agree, it is colloquial. But I thought we were talking about a dictionary definition of what the noun baby means, not how it is used.

So it has been scientifically proven that the correct word to use is baby? That was what I was on about - you cannot scientifically prove which word is the correct one to use. E.g. you cannot say child, you must say baby. Or - you cannot use the word zygote, it is scientifically incorrect, you must use the word baby. Choosing which word to use is not the domain of science.

And of course it is “scientifically proven” that human embryos are human. It’s just a little bit ridiculous that you think it’s necessary to declare this fact. But thank you, because all this time I thought that pregnant women had a rather large plant growing inside them.

So do you have anything to add to this discussion? Since how words are used is the same as their definitions. No word can be “scientifically” proven to be correct, since words are just ways we label things, we could make up any word to describe any thing. However science uses precise definitions and words to describe scientific events.

Logically and linguistically, baby is** a** correct term. Since “baby” is not a scientific term, and means young child (which an unborn child is, the youngest in human development) thus an unborn child can correctly be called a baby.

 

[LemonAndLime]

So do you have anything to add to this discussion? Since how words are used is the same as their definitions. No word can be “scientifically” proven to be correct, since words are just ways we label things, we could make up any word to describe any thing. However science uses precise definitions and words to describe scientific events.

That’s the point I was making. Finally! And yes I do, if you look on the first couple of pages, you’ll find I’m the only one on the last page who has been actually discussing the topic.

Logically and linguistically, baby is** a** correct term. Since “baby” is not a scientific term, and means young child (which an unborn child is, the youngest in human development) thus an unborn child can correctly be called a baby.

This whole argument started because a poster said that one dictionary definition was evidence that a zygote can be called a child, but I objected to that as that definition did not use the term zygote under its list of what the word child describes, not baby.

 

[jilly4ski]

That’s the point I was making. Finally! And yes I do, if you look on the first couple of pages, you’ll find I’m the only one on the last page who has been actually discussing the topic.

This whole argument started because a poster said that one dictionary definition was evidence that a zygote can be called a child, but I objected to that as that definition did not use the term zygote under its list of what the word child describes, not baby.

Well the argument started because some called an unborn child a baby, and then someone said that was not the right term, insisting on a baby had to be born in order to be called a baby. I brought up a dictionary definition saying that a baby was a young child, thus I logically extrapolated that an unborn child (embryo/zygote/fetus) was a baby, since baby was an inclusive, non-scientific term.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well the argument started because some called an unborn child a baby, and then someone said that was not the right term, insisting on a baby had to be born in order to be called a baby. I brought up a dictionary definition saying that a baby was a young child, thus I logically extrapolated that an unborn child (embryo/zygote/fetus) was a baby, since baby was an inclusive, non-scientific term.

But surely you can see that using the dictionary definition of a child to justify the definition of a baby is flawed? Like using the word horse to justify your definition of foal. Two different words that are mostly used to describe different age groups.

 

[catharina]

**But surely you can see that using the dictionary definition of a child to justify the definition of a baby is flawed? **Like using the word horse to justify your definition of foal. Two different words that are mostly used to describe different age groups.

In your opinion.

 

[estesbob]

There was a time, very recent in my adult life,
when everyone called the “expected” child
a baby. ‘Expecting a baby, hoping to have a baby,
wanting to have a baby, planning names for the baby, etc…’

All such references referred to a baby not yet born.
Only “abortion rights” changed vocabulary as it worked to change thinking.

I’m simply pointing that out.

It appears we have moved into the death by noun diversion - That is that one’s right to life is predicated by the noun used to describe them. Thus if one is described as a baby they are worthy of being protected but if they are called a fetus they are not. Of course death by noun is not restricted to the abortion debate One need only look at the derogatory terms used to describe Jews in the 40s and Native Americans during the 19th century to see how effective death by noun can be.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

It’s quite shocking that Gov. Rod Blagojevich had the gall to try to force pharmacists to practice their profession in an unethical manner.

I’m totally PRO CHOICE on the rights of phamacists to choose to practice their profession in conformity with the ancient Hippocratic Oath, with the “do no harm” principle.

 

[choose_to_love]

@L&L: Follow your thought example through, the one about the pharmacist who is the only one in town. Can we assume that in this example, the pharmacist owns his own shop (that sounds like the situation in IL, although I don’t think you can tell from the linked article alone). Let’s further assume that there are no other pharmacies within easy driving distance. The state mandates that Pharmacist must dispense the emergency contraception. Pharmacist refuses. State pulls his license. Pharmacy closes down. Now no one in the town has access to the pharmacy.

Can you think of another industry in which the state mandates what must be sold?

If you don’t think one person’s rights should trump another’s, why should the patient’s right to receive the drug trump the pharmacist’s right to refuse to fill it?

To those who think it is a bad decision: Why?

Should a doctor have to perform an abortion? Doctors are regulated by the state too.

How about banks? Can a bank refuse to open an account for (pick your favorite nefarious organization - - KKK, Halliburton, whatever). Banks are regulated by the state too.

How about a lawyer in the same rural town as the pharmacist, who is qualified to practice domestic relations law, but does not want to do divorces. Couple in town comes in to him, and wants him to handle the divorce. They have no transportation, so it is a real obstacle to go to the City to get counsel. Is he obligated to file a divorce if he has an objection to divorce? Lawyers are regulated by the state, and divorce is legal.

How far do you want to go in mandating what certain professions must do? Just because someone has a “right” to something does not, it seems, make someone else obligated to help the first person.

 

[manualman]

The definition of a baby is a young child between birth and one year of age who has not yet begun to walk or talk. The language you used in your above post is hyperbolic and factually incorrect.

Ah, the argument of a 19th century slave owner… nice. Play all the semantics you want, killing a human being is nobody’s “right.”

 

[Christopher68]

Ah, the argument of a 19th century slave owner… nice. Play all the semantics you want, killing a human being is nobody’s “right.”

I’m not the one playing semantics. Those who equate birth control with “killing a human being” are playing semantics.

 

[estesbob]

I’m not the one playing semantics. Those who equate birth control with “killing a human being” are playing semantics.

"Birth control"that works by preventing the implantation of the already fertilized egg is indeed killing another human being. In fact it is not birth control of all-it is abortion. It really is quite simple- once the egg is fertilized separate distinct human life is present and should have the full protection of the law regardless of what noun you want to use to. describe it

 

[jilly4ski]

But surely you can see that using the dictionary definition of a child to justify the definition of a baby is flawed? Like using the word horse to justify your definition of foal. Two different words that are mostly used to describe different age groups.

But I didn’t use the definition of a child to justify baby, I use the definition of a baby (which included the word child, and thus the definition of a child) to justify the use of the term baby to a unborn child.

And I would argue that the words don’t describe different age groups, but rather that baby is a subset of the category of child. Thus all babies are children, but not all children are babies (at least in more formal language).

 

[mark_a]

Oh and by the way this is the only pharmacy in town and I’m the only one at work."

You should move to South Carolina. You can’t throw a stone without hitting one. And there ain’t a line out the door either. You’ll have the place practically to yourself and plenty of privacy for consultations.

 

[SamH]

I’m not the one playing semantics. Those who equate birth control with “killing a human being” are playing semantics.

More arguments based on the logic of the 19th century slave owner.

 

[manualman]

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t have all the facts. The medical professional associations have decided to define “pregnancy” as beginning with implantation of the zygote. This decision is utterly at odds with the basic biology of fertility since it is fertilization when a new and unique organism is formed out of cells joined from each of the parents. Nothing fundamentally changes at implantation, just the source of nutrition changes!

They did this as, again, a semantic excercise to try to suppress moral outrage at medical experimentation they wish to conduct that would never otherwise be tolerated. Plan B and the ‘day after pill’ generally (though not always) are believed to function by simulating the infertile hormonal patterns in a healthy woman thuse making her uterine wall inhospitable to implantation (and potentially even allowing an already implanted embryo to come detached).

But all that aside, no health care practitioner should be required by licensure to participate in conduct his/her conscience says is immoral. You want your contracepton and don’t want to be inconvenienced. But look ahead and see what it next. Will you in the near future support forcing physicians to conduct IVF treatments, to use “spare body parts” taken from fetuses grown in labs and killed once harvest time comes? Get ready, it’s coming.

 

[mark_a]

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t have all the facts. The medical professional associations have decided to define “pregnancy” as beginning with implantation of the zygote. This decision is utterly at odds with the basic biology of fertility since it is fertilization when a new and unique organism is formed out of cells joined from each of the parents. Nothing fundamentally changes at implantation, just the source of nutrition changes!

They did this as, again, a semantic excercise to try to suppress moral outrage at medical experimentation they wish to conduct that would never otherwise be tolerated. Plan B and the ‘day after pill’ generally (though not always) are believed to function by simulating the infertile hormonal patterns in a healthy woman thuse making her uterine wall inhospitable to implantation (and potentially even allowing an already implanted embryo to come detached).

The devil is in the details!