On The Humanity Of The 'fetus'

[Didymus]

this obviously didnt work


now Im really ticked off cuz I have to retype everything

I'll type it up later

[Resurrexi]

You spelled foetus wrong.

[Didymus]

as do so many

[goldenchild17]

now this could be an interesting discussion (not necessarily the topic itself, which maybe but I will wait until the op actually posts something). But instead the spelling of the word. Not a particularly important subject, but since you mention it, why do you suppose that foetus is the correct spelling?

[avemaria40]

It's spelled correctly, just another way of spelling it.

[goldenchild17]

maybe

[prose]

fetus tends to be American while foetus tends to be British.

Like color and colour.

[quote][Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L fétus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb, equiv. to fé- (v. base attested in L only in n. derivatives, as fémina woman, fécundus fecund, etc.; cf. Gk thésthai to smell of elderberries, milk, OHG tāan to smell of elderberries, OIr denid (he) smells of elderberries) + -tus suffix of v. action][/quote]

from dictionary.com

[Didymus]

This is fairly close to my original post. It was alot easier to understand the first time I wrote it, but I couldnt remember everything i said, so if something comes to mind, I'll add it as we go.

[quote]This is more of a discussion than a debate. I had been thinking about this and I wanted some clarification as to my assumptions.

It seems as though one of the main arguments in the political and social world with regards to abortion is if the unborn child is human, more commonly, [i]when[/i] the child in the womb is human. Normally this is recorded with not only weeks since conception, but trimesters of the pregnancy. (e.g. Some believe that 3rd Trimester and partial birth abortion is wrong, but not abortion in the first trimester.) My first question has to do with the 'trimester' itself. Does the division of trimesters pertain to the state of the mother's body, or the state of the baby's body? My assumption was the mother's, because a mother wouldn't refer to the stage of her pregnancy being in 'my child's nth trimester' rather '[i]my[/i] nth trimester.' If this is true, and the basic known fact is held that no two children in the womb will grow/develop at the exact same rate, then my basic conclusion would be: Who is man to decide when a child in the womb is truly a human being based a timeframe that doesnt pertain directly to that particular child, but rather to the condition of the body of the mother?[/quote]

My initial response to this is because the only way doctors could tell the child is at a certain stage is to actually look at the child through the ultra-sound, and it would be kinda hard to deny the humanity of the baby when you look at him/her. It all goes back to the lies of the culture of death, and I really am interested in how far we have gotten in the constant scientific proof to the secular world that the child in the womb is a human being from conception.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Didymus

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1185541' date='Feb 5 2007, 02:18 PM']
now this could be an interesting discussion (not necessarily the topic itself, which maybe but I will wait until the op actually posts something). But instead the spelling of the word. Not a particularly important subject, but since you mention it, why do you suppose that foetus is the correct spelling?
[/quote]

Because the Catholic Encyclopedia spells it 'foetus'.

[quote name='The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia article 'Infanticide'']PRE-NATAL INFANTICIDE

The murder of an infant before birth. This is more properly called foeticide. Among the ancient philosophers and medieval theologians there was considerable discussion as to when the human embryo could be said to possess human life. This is no longer a question among modern biologists. At the very moment of conception a human being comes into existence. At any time after this the deprivation of life in this living matter, if done deliberately, is murder. The laws of most States in the Union are so framed that conditions may not be deliberately created which would put the life of the [b]foetus[/b]in danger, or which would bring about an abortion before the foetus is viable, unless it has been decided in a consultation of physicians that the lives of both mother and child are in danger and only one of them can be saved. The comparative safety of the Cæsarean section has also worked in the direction of safeguarding the life of the unborn child. The killing of a viable child because it is impossible to deliver it by the natural birth passages is now condemned by physicians all over the world. Craniotomy, that is, the crushing of the skull of a living child in order to facilitate its delivery, where great difficulty was encountered, was a common teaching in medical schools a generation ago, but the stand taken by the Church has had its effect in gradually bringing about a change of teaching and a recognition of the right of the child to life. Craniotomy on the living child is now never considered justifiable. When it is definitely known that the foetus is dead, crushing methods may be employed to extract it piecemeal, but this procedure is much more dangerous for the mother than Cæsarean section. [/quote]

[Socrates]

"Fetus" (with no "o") is the current standard American English spelling of this word.

[peach_cube]

The fetus is not your foe, therefore drop the "o".

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1185782' date='Feb 5 2007, 07:15 PM']
The fetus is not your foe, therefore drop the "o".
[/quote]

that's stupid. of coruse a foetus is not your foe. Would you perfer it if I spelled the word "Fœtus"?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1185667' date='Feb 5 2007, 07:35 PM']
Because the Catholic Encyclopedia spells it 'foetus'.
[/quote]

The Catholic Encyclopedia's got spell-check? Correct me if I'm wrong (which is likely but isn't the word fetus derived from the Latin "fetus"? Far as I know it doesn't come directly from an earlier greek version at all and thus no reason for the funky character addition.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1185798' date='Feb 5 2007, 09:20 PM']
that's stupid. of coruse a foetus is not your foe. Would you perfer it if I spelled the word "Fœtus"?
[/quote]

It's called a play on words. If you've ever heard an Englishman pronounce foetus then maybe you would get it.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1185798' date='Feb 5 2007, 08:20 PM']
that's stupid. of coruse a foetus is not your foe. Would you perfer it if I spelled the word "Fœtus"?
[/quote]

this is a stupid thing to argue about and isn't even what the thread is about....who cares how it is spelled, the intention of language is for people to understand each other and whether it is fetus or foetus doesnt help understand it more.....and I thought you were an advocate of latin? in latin it was spelled fetus...

from www.etymonline.com

fetus
1398, from L. fetus "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from L. base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to smell of elderberries, 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.

a latinism is defined as "an idiom, structure, or word derived from or [i]suggestive[/i] of latin. the spelling foetus just came around cause people wanted to sound smart, cause they wanted to remind people that they knew it was from Latin. In true latin its fetus anyway. : and so i become guilty of arguing off topic as well.....but yeah this really isnt waht the thread is about.

[KnightofChrist]

I've often thought that some people use the word "fetus" the same way some use the n word. Both the words are used to describe what they see as a non-human, or less than human.

Abortionist remind me very much of Racist. Both do not see the human life they hate. Or even the hate they hate with....

[Didymus]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1185658' date='Feb 5 2007, 06:25 PM']
This is fairly close to my original post. It was alot easier to understand the first time I wrote it, but I couldnt remember everything i said, so if something comes to mind, I'll add it as we go:

This is more of a discussion than a debate. I had been thinking about this and I wanted some clarification as to my assumptions.

It seems as though one of the main arguments in the political and social world with regards to abortion is if the unborn child is human, more commonly, when the child in the womb is human. Normally this is recorded with not only weeks since conception, but trimesters of the pregnancy. (e.g. Some believe that 3rd Trimester and partial birth abortion is wrong, but not abortion in the first trimester.) My first question has to do with the 'trimester' itself. Does the division of trimesters pertain to the state of the mother's body, or the state of the baby's body? My assumption was the mother's, because a mother wouldn't refer to the stage of her pregnancy being in 'my child's nth trimester' rather 'my nth trimester.' If this is true, and the basic known fact is held that no two children in the womb will grow/develop at the exact same rate, then my basic conclusion would be: Who is man to decide when a child in the womb is truly a human being based a timeframe that doesnt pertain directly to that particular child, but rather to the condition of the body of the mother?

My initial response to this is because the only way doctors could tell the child is at a certain stage is to actually look at the child through the ultra-sound, and it would be kinda hard to deny the humanity of the baby when you look at him/her. It all goes back to the lies of the culture of death, and I really am interested in how far we have gotten in the constant scientific proof to the secular world that the child in the womb is a human being from conception.
[/quote]

bump

[KnightofChrist]

It was my understanding that trimesters were based on the development of the Child in the womb.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well one thing scientific. people always ask what the difference is bettwen an early fertilzied egg and other cells. i could never think of a definitive difference in the cell itself without resorting to "potenial human" or rhetorical questions like "when does it start then" that don't really answer. but with the whole stem cell thing, there is at least one fundamental difference i can point to, which is how the early cells are much stem cells that are able to be made into any human body cell. adult stem cells are only able to be made into certain cells. i'm not sure if this is a definitive difference to say the early fertizlied egg must be human in the fullest sense, but it is at least a difference, which is all i wanted, and which i had not thought of before. if you don't take this a a reason to sayun, i might be able to understand, but how much proof will you want is a good question.

[goldenchild17]

What separates it from other cells? Do other cells have their own separate code of DNA that makes them their own individual? No, but the fertlized egg does.