by 
A baby, by any other name, is still a baby. However, some today are attempting to change the name Fetus to mean “less than human” and they apply that name to the most defenseless among us in order to justify their own desire.
Have you ever noticed how militant the Pro-Abortion side is about using the term Fetus for the pre-born baby? Why do you think they are frightened of that name?
If Fetus wasn’t enough, the newer term being used is “product of conception”. This term is meant to dehumanize the unborn even more, and yet, logically, all adults are products of conception!
And lastly the name “Fertilized Egg” has been used to describe a baby, in an attempt to imply that the baby is not human. It would be no more correct to call the baby a “Modified Sperm”—because it’s a new, unique individual.
In Physician magazine, Dr. Eugene Diamond explains the reason for this terminology twisting:
Prior to 1976, a “contraceptive” was understood to be an agent that prevented the union of a sperm and ovum. In 1976 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG], realizing that this definition didn’t help its political agenda, arbitrarily changed the definition.
A contraceptive now meant anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst, which occurs six or seven days after fertilization. Conception, as defined by Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary [27th edition], became “the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst.”
The hidden agenda in the ACOG’s redefinition of “contraceptive” was to blur the distinction between agent preventing fertilization and those preventing implantation of the week-old embryo. Specifically, abortifacients such as IUDs, combination pills, minipills, progestin-only pills, injectables such as Provera and , more recently, implantables such as Norplant, all are contraceptives by this definition.1
The idea is this: if we can change the terminology, then we can use it to convince people to do what they usually wouldn’t.
That’s why there are many in Christian circles who would say they would never get an abortion, but are on birth control pills or shots. They believe that life begins at conception, but the truth is that they are doing things to prevent implantation—essentially starving their offspring.
And it’s a concerted effort. It’s not “science simply stating the facts”. Terminology is changed from moment to moment in an effort to mask and confuse.
And it gets worse—Pro-Abortion proponents have called unborn children:
- A “venereal disease” and abortion “cures”.
- Debris
- Garbage
- Refuse
If someone were to call a person of another race this kind of terminology, we would have to have a national discussion culminating with a meeting at the White House picnic bench, but calling an unborn, innocent child these kinds of things, that’s acceptable in pubic discourse.
- Dr. Eugene F. Diamond, “Word Wars: Games People Play about the Beginning of Life,” Focus on the Family, Physician, November-December 1992, 14-5. [↩]
What you are accusing pro-abortionists of you are quite guilty of yourself if this article honestly communicates your beliefs.
“[Christians] believe that life begins at conception, but the truth is that they are doing things to prevent implantation—essentially starving their offspring.” Your assertion that birth-control is essentially murder of unborn children begs the criminalisation of male masturbation, as that causes the death of thousands upon thousands of potential human lives, which, needless to say, is unintelligent at best (not to mention the fact that you are tell other people that their beliefs are wrong, which is utterly ridiculous without mention).
Is killing sperm tantamount to killing a baby?
You also say that “pro-abortionists” have called “unborn children”, which by your definition could mean anything from a gamete to a fetus, “A “venereal disease” and abortion “cures”.” To some people, unintentional insemination can be worse than a venereal disease, destroying not only their lives but the life of the child, as well.
No-one sane believes that killing children is acceptable, the argument is with where life begins, and not even science can give us a definitive answer on that one (and seeing as you sound anti-religious, we won’t even go there).
So where does that leave us? It’s not semantics, it’s not a moral debate, it’s a question that has no true answer (just like “what happens when we die?”): when does life begin? I’ll buy you a beer if you can convince me of an answer.
Every birth control commercial and fact sheet says that birth control is 90+% effective in preventing pregnancy. Pregnancy is defined as the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterine wall. Birth control works to both prevent ovulation as well as to disturb the uterine wall so that implantation cannot occur. If one believes that life begins at conception (or fertilization), then if the medication that a woman takes prevents that new life from implanting, the new life will die.
It is not similar in any way to male masturbation or the natural re-absorption of unfertilized eggs since there is no life there. Each part of the conception process contains half the genetic information to reproduce a new human being. When the two are united, a new being has been formed.
I’m not commenting on beliefs. It’s a medical and scientific fact that a new life is formed when the egg is fertilized. Those that choose to take pills or patches to prevent the implantation of those new beings are the ones playing God.
If there are people for whom “unintentional insemination” is worse than a venereal disease, they should refrain from intercourse all together. And yet I don’t figure that you’d argue that if someone gets “unintentionally inseminated” that the man and woman should be killed along with their unborn child? I mean, why should just the most innocent being in the mix suffer death because his parents decide that they are selfishly better off if he’s dead?
If you’ve read any of the articles that I’ve posted, and read the transcripts of the presentation to Congress on the topic, you’ll see that there’s little disagreement on when life begins– and that the “pro-choice” side has been reduced to saying basically the argument you proffered “but it’s better if we kill them.”
I don’t have to “convince you” of anything (and I don’t drink alcohol).