A zygote is also a human baby at a specified stage of gestation. That we differentiate its stage for clinical reasons is why there's a term for it.
Actually, no on both counts. One, we don't differentiate its stage for clinical reasons, because it's not a clinical term. It is derived from "to yoke", to join together, much like yoking a couple of oxen to use for plowing. A zygote is still the single cell that is produced when a mature sexual reproductive cell joins or unites with another cell, usually a sperm uniting with an egg cell for fertilization, and before the cell performs the first division, or cleavage. It is also used to refer to the new organism that results from the union. It is also used to refer to the fetus at all stages of development prior to the first emergence of any body structures of the type, which in humans ends at the end of the second month of gestation.
You can call a 4 week old zygote a fetus, or a baby, or a human, but doing so won't make it anything other than a zygote. If it continues to develop properly, it
will be one of those other terms, but not until it is developed. A cake isn't a cake until it's finished baking, and a baby isn't a baby until it's finished gestating.
From thefreedictionary.com, which cites several original sources, and is a free app for droid and probably iPhone, too, and can be accessed online by everybody else:
I'll dispense with my usual <snort>, because this is, or should be, an intelligent discussion of the issues. The FreeDictionary is like Wikipedia, where anyone can add a new definition if they can cite a source where it was used in that context. It allows for politically motivated and emotional definitions like the one you quoted to be entered into the text. It's not exactly the definitive source for use by linguists, lexicographers, etymologists or scholars. Without even looking, I'll bet real money that you won't find "unborn child" or "fetus" listed in the premier source, The Oxford English Dictionary, under the definition of "baby". And that's because "unborn child" and "fetus" are emotional or political definitions, defined specifically for an agenda, and are not used by those who do not share the same agenda.
From the Hippocratic Oath:
"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest
any such counsel; and in like
manner I will not give to a
woman a pessary to produce
abortion."
The oath was sworn to Apollo, but I see no evidence that the oath against pre-natal infanticide was taken out of principles of anything other than humanity.
Well, first of all, the oath was sworn BY the name of Apollo, not TO Apollo (much the same as swearing to God today, or swearing by a loved one's life that you are telling the truth, a pinkie swear, swearing an oath in court, etc.). Apollo was the Greek god of healing and medicine (among others, he was a very versatile god), as well as to Asclepius (Greek goddess of healing and medicine), Hygieia (daughter of Asclepius, and goddess of health, sanitation and cleanliness, or hygiene), and Panacea (another goddess of healing).
Second, the oath isn't against pre-natal infanticide. The oath is against giving a pessary to produce abortion, not against abortion itself. There is a reason he specifically mentions one particular form of abortion, the pessary. A pessary is a specific device that was often used to induce abortion, but as many found out, including Hippocrates himself, that it often caused vaginal ulcers, which often became infected and septic, and far too often killed the patient or made them unable to bear children in the future.
Though "Western," their religious scruples were fairly far removed from today's Christianity. But even if religious motives were behind it, so what?
Well, the "so what" about it is, it's forcing religion and religious morals into someone else, whether they want to abide by them or not. It's letting religious views tell others what they can and cannot do.
Yes, it is. "Thou shalt not murder." The WORD abortion or an equivalent isn't there, but neither is the word "trinity," and that's taught as a concept.
Using the trinity as an example is not evidence that abortion is mentioned in the Bible as a taught concept, sorry. That's a strawman, and a bad one. You can't broadly define "murder" to mean what you want in various contexts, either. If abortion is murder, then you must ask the question, is a fetus the same as a full-term human person, to which the answer is no, no matter how many times or loudly some will scream yes. Many point to Psalm 139:13-16, which makes the point that God was involved in the creation of this particular human being, but it does not state that during the creation the fetus is indeed a person. That's something that people added later on (
much later on, like 150 years ago) in order to redefine
what a fetus is for their own religious agendas.
According to Genesis, God was involved in the creation of every living thing, and yet that doesn't make every living thing a full human person. Just because God was involved in its creation, it does not mean terminating it is the same as murder., especially in the context of murder as used in the Bible. It's only murder if a full human person is destroyed. You can't simply redefine a zygote and a fetus to be a full human simply because it fits with the definition of murder, and therefore you can tell people they can't have an abortion. That may very well be the epitome of twisting religion for personal reasons so as to mind someone else's business and tell them what to do and what to think.
Yes, I'm sure that's the motivation. (pretend sarcasm smiley)
Well, the actions of people who cannot help themselves to get involved in other people's business, even people they don't know, in all manner of topics, would certainly support the theory.
No more or less than any other torture-murder. Hey, as long as it's done in private, right?
Another logical fallacy, a loaded question, assumes things to be true that aren't true. You can call it infanticide, or torture or murder or whatever you like, but that won't make it so.
If pre-natal infanticide can't be criminalized and punished, nothing can. The murder of humans, which you said yourself a fetus is, has always been wrong.
First, don't put words in my mouth. I absolutely did not say a fetus is a human. I said "A human fetus is in fact a human
at a specified stage of gestation,
but until it has been fully gestated, it's still not a baby,
nor is it fully human." I also said, "It's in the process of becoming a human, though." Second, "pre-natal infanticide" is an invented term, invented by the anti-abortion crowd (A.K.A. the Pro-Mind Other People's Business crowd), specifically to try and attack some abhorrent connotation to abortion. Some people what to completely throw out the term "abortion", or abort it, if you will, and replace it with "prenatal infanticide". These people should be congratulated, because it's the same exact tactics that have given us "equal marriage" instead of "same-sex" or "homosexual" marriage, and that have given us the term "progressive" to replace "socialist".
Just look at the opposing terms in abortion: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. Both terms are a laughing stock in euphemisms. The Pro-Life people chose that term because to be against it would mean Pro-Death or Anti-Life, and no one wants to be thought of as Pro-Death. The Pro-Choice people chose that one because to be against it would mean to be Anti-Choice or Pro-Let-Me-Choose-For-You, and even though that's precisely what a lot of religious folks want, they really can't just come out and admit to it. And so it continues, us versus them.
I would suggest to many that they do some research and educate themselves on the history of abortion. And no, I don't mean confine the research to the information present on anti-abortion Web sites. The reason for doing so should be for education, not to pick and choose items that support a belief. Take a close look at how long it has been widely practiced, just how heavily involved Hippocrates was in the practice, at his extensive writings on the subject, and look at when, where and why it became discouraged and even outlawed. And then, after doing all that, take a close look at the issue today, and see who the most staunch defenders of anti-abortion are, and for what reason.
