"Zef" - the newest propaganda tactic

So I've learned recently that the newest propaganda tactic, that the pro-abortion extremists are using is instead of distinguishing between a zygote, embryo, fetus, - is to simply blur the lines and label them all as the "zef" (makes me think of how the term "untermensch" was used, by you know who, it was simpler and more convenient to the agenda).

The intent here is to try to hide the dark nature of late term abortion, by pretending that a viable fetus (baby), with a beating heart, a brain, and the ability to feel pain, is no different than embryo or zygote smaller than a gnat's brain 1 second after conception.

This is the latest tactic that the extremist, Ayn Randroid, nutters who put arbitrarily decided "property rights" above human life are using to mask their agenda. If you care about human life, ethics, or simply have a conscience anytime you see one of them say "zef", post a picture of a late term fetus/baby - don't let them mask what they're really about.

 

It is just a short-hand. I think you are reading too much into it. Besides, isn't it the pro-lifers who want to equate a zygote to a fetus?

 

That's how I always saw it. Usually I call it a fetus because that is what it is when most abortions occur. It is normally long past the zygote/embryo stage at 6-9 weeks when most abortions happen.

 

What the pro choice won't call it is a "person" or a "human being" who is in the Zygote, Embryo or Fetal stage of their own life, growth and development.

The OP has it correct.

The pro-choice call it a 'ZEF' as if that somehow makes the child anything less than what that they are.

Human beings.

Children.

And as such....

'Persons.'

 

Well that's where all these semantic debates come in right? You define what a person is, you define what a human being is and then you go from there to see if a zygote/embryo/fetus falls under those categories. Then we all have these big long winded semantic debates and nobody ever agrees. The end!

 

Even if I believed it, I am not going to type out "human being who is in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their own life, growth, and development" every time I need a term for the conceptus.

 

Over half of all abortions in the U.S. occur within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, in the embryo stage.

 

I don't agree with you fully, the zygote state doesn't yet meet the biological criteria for a person, since there currently is no brain (and no conscience), so in that state it does not, for a fact, meet the biological criteria for a human life, it's 'alive' in the same sense that a sperm cell is, but not yet a human - the late term abortionists however essentially admit they don't care if it's a person, because they use the Ayn Rand logic that some silly 'property' right to a uterus overrides the right to life - just as a slave owner's property rights once overrode a negroes.

 

There's a biological criteria set for personhood?

Can you provide a link to that reference please?

Again, I would like to see a reference which states that consciousness or brainwaves is required for 'personhood.'

My sources (including the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Supreme Court Rulings on Anencephalic children born without a frontal cortex) says that consciousness is not required for personhood.

Like I said... I would like to see the references you use to support that claim.

Just need a reference to support that claim please.

No disagreement with you on that one.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, you just typed it out in the form of a denial...

So, why wouldn't you type it out in the form of an acknowledgment?

Not even once?

 

Yes.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is legal definition not biology. Anencephalic children do have a brain and basic cognitive functions even if not on par with a healthy brain, that's the difference. A sperm cell is a biological form of life but doesn't have a brain, a zygote or embryo doesn't have one either.

 

This comment from your Wikipedia link: "At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus." <---- is not a biological reference.

Yeah...

That's why it was cited as a legal reference and not a biological one.

Anencephalia:
: congenital absence of all or a major part of the brain

Anencephalic children are incapable of consciousness. They have no brain (frontal cortex) to make that possible.

Yet, our courts have held that they are entitled to the same protections of our laws that any other child is.

And they continue to do so.

So, again... I am waiting for an action biological source which supports your claim that 'conscience' is REQUIRED for personhood.

The UVVA for example makes it a crime of MURDER to illegal kill a child in the womb while in ANY stage of their development.

No brain or level of self awareness is required.

AND?

 

Why does everything have to have a motive with pro-lifers, zef is just short hand, it has no intent to hide anything what so ever. One could say the same of pro-lifers who insist on using "baby" for a zygote/embryo/fetus when medically it is not.

 

It's all semantics. It's like saying that a "shooting star" is not really a star at all, even though the person who coined the term "shooting star" had zero intention of implying that the meteor was a giant ball of hydrogen being nuclearly fused into helium or any of the other elements fused by stars. Modern people will say that the ancients were "wrong" to think that those things were stars. But their definition for star was probably simply, "bright specks in the sky", a criteria met perfectly well by the meteor.

So that's how things get kind of fuzzy when someone takes it upon himself to define a term scientifically when that term has already been in use for centuries before modern science.

 

so why not use the correct terms .. "baby" is not the correct term for a zef at any stage of it's gestation, nothing to do with demeaning the zef .. just simple science.

 

In my opinion, the definitions of the terms "baby", "person", "murder", etc. have no relevance to the abortion debate whatsoever. Not sure how the stuff gets brought up.

I never hear anyone complaining about the Subway commercial where the police officer says about the toasted sandwiches, "Well, get them babies home before they cool off." Clearly, a sandwich is not a human being at that certain stage of development. But the use of the term is acceptable in that regard, while it is criticized in this regard when used for something much closer to a real "baby", a developing human at a different stage.

I would guess that the word "baby" has no scientific meaning and does not refer to a certain stage of development, but is more of a colloquial term to refer to certain early stages which probably do have scientific names. But I could be wrong. If not, then it's hardly worth worrying about if someone uses the term for a slightly earlier stage of development, such as pre-birth.

But if your argument depends on semantics, by all means, use whatever you can to make it make sense to you. Not sure what the point of talking about these words are.

In the end, we all know what is happening: a woman is killing what would have been her child because she is too irresponsible to accept that she is a mother now. Sorry if I misused any semantics in that sentence but heck, we all know what is happening. Why pretend like the words used to describe it matter?

 

Pro-choicers don't have to use fancy language to make a fetus less than a born child. They already are.

 

Whatever "less" could possibly mean in this context, why does this status as "less than a born child" allow it to be killed with no moral dilemma?

 

Because other people do have the opinion they are relevant.

Yep they do, its called informal usage .. no problem with pro-lifers using the word "baby" in an informal usage way .. problem is they don't.

Then you would guess wrong - http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=9072 baby has a very specific usage in medical (scientific) meaning.

not at all does it depend on semantics .. I personal just like to use the correct words when debating an issue, it does tend to show that you and your opponent have at least some idea of the subject at hand.

nope, that is your perception of the situation and is one not agreed with by other people .. you are perfectly entitled to that perception, just as others are perfectly entitled to disagree,

 

It's only relevant because so many people are limited in their debate skills. We all know what's going on here when a mother wants to kill the thing growing inside of her. Call it what you want. I hope I am not using the term "thing" incorrectly in that sentence.

Thanks for that link as it elegantly proves my point about the term "baby." The definition you linked to reads: baby: An infant; a newborn child. So since that definition was unsatisfactory, I took it upon myself to look up what the word "infant" means on that same site: infant: A child younger than 1 year old. I also looked up "newborn" since both of those were given as definitions of "baby". Newborn only gave a synonym "neonate" which I also looked up and found: neonate: An infant aged 1 month or younger. So that contradiction within the definition of "baby" certainly demonstrates my point that the term is not scientific nor does it have any specific usage in the medical community, as you falsely assert.

Then why the misinformation about "baby" having a specific medical definition? It does not, so obviously you don't have any privileged information about the term and its meaning. Why say such a thing except as a semantics argument?

If a woman was charged for murder of her fetus, she would have her day in court and the specifics of her case would be heard by a judge or jury and they would be the ones whose perception of her actions mattered. As it is, the women to whom my perception is applicable are indistinguishable from anyone who might have an abortion for some inexplicable noble reason.

 

Who is pro-abortion? Abortion is something that is better than the alternatives the forced-birthers offer, that's all. Ugly, ignorant insensitivity is what marks the holy bullies I'm glad, though, that someone told me what 'ZEF' meant. I was guessing at Zion Exhumation Force.

 

Because born children have rights that exist independent of their mother's because they themselves are now independent entities. A fetus can not make that claim at all, so the mother's rights are what matters there. You can not have two individuals with rights occupying the same body. Conjoined twins and cases like that are an exception, but they do not set the precedent for law in the same way that the fact that hermaphrodites exist doesn't mean that all bathrooms must be unisex.

 

These things are not inherently obvious by any means. In fact, I've never heard anything about two individuals with rights occupying the same body. My instinct tells me that both should have rights. But I am doing this thing where I expect my logic to be applicable outside of the abortion debate. As you showed with the conjoined twins example, you have no such limitations on what you might say in this debate.

 

You expect your logic to be applicable in all situations? Are you willing to take that claim to it's logical conclusion, and not just in the abortion debate?

Why did you not address my example of hermaphrodites and unisex bathrooms then? If there are no exceptions in the law to cover that very tiny fraction of people born that way regarding bathrooms(and that's just one example), why then do we have bathrooms for each gender? If there are people who are both, shouldn't all bathrooms be made to accommodate them, no matter how few times that law would actually affect someone with that condition?

What about the insanity defense in court? Why are there exceptions there? If a person commits a crime, they are responsible for their actions, are they not? Why do some escape prison by claiming insanity?

How about those with peanut allergies? Shouldn't all restaurants and food businesses be required to not use peanuts as they could be potentially fatal to a small portion of the population? We aren't allowed to put poisons and other harmful chemicals in food for the same reason, but there are no exceptions made despite the fact that peanuts could be fatal to some people.

Just a few examples. The law is designed to accommodate the situations that are most common which is why restaurants can cook with peanuts and why we can make exceptions for those who are not mentally healthy. If the law was designed around every possible exception, no matter how small, we would literally not be allowed to do anything.

The abortion debate is no different, and even with the issue of conjoined twins, they do not become people until born which means that the fact that they are conjoined has little to do with whether or not the mother can choose abortion. Another distinction with conjoined twins is that they are truly equal, and when they are not, almost always the decision is made to save the life of the one most likely to survive. This is also not the case with a mother and fetus. The mother and the fetus are not equal. The fetus is a part of the mother, is dependent on her and her body, and resides within her. That is a clear distinction between the two, one that does not put a fetus on equal footing with it's mother.

 

I would have to review the laws on the books regarding gender specific bathrooms. I am not familiar with that. Perhaps you have a link?

Not sure about that. Seems like insane people are the main ones we need off the streets. They are much more likely to continue committing crimes, being insane and all.

Serving poison is a very poor business model for an aspiring restauranteur. People with peanut allergies are responsible for their own decisions as well.

I would say that the fetus is superior in that it has not yet expressed a desire to kill another human being, as the aborting mother has. But that's just my opinion. I wouldn't try to say that, legally, the fetus is superior. Legally, of course, they are equals.

 

do I detect a hint of sarcastic humour there, not a problem I do have a sense of humour - though some would dispute that.

No false assertion on my part at all .. ask a doctor to give you the medical names for the stages involved in a pregnancy, I can almost guarantee you 100% that baby will not be amongst them, then ask the same doctor the medical name for the stage from birth to one year, and yet again I can almost guarantee you 100% he/she will say baby.

If you really want to play the semantics game then we can - baby - late 14c., short for baban (early 13c.), which probably is imitative of baby talk (cf. babble), however in many languages the cognate word means "old woman" (cf. Russian babushka "grandmother," from baba "peasant woman").

It does have a specific medical definition as shown, but just like any other definition the words that make up that definition also have definitions (hope that makes sense) that does not make its own definition any less specific or any less relevant. A baby is an infant or a newborn child - if you want to see how the words relate then check on fetus and you will find it's medical definition is "In humans, the product of conception from the end of the eighth week of gestation to the moment of birth." - http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=32556 thus it is pretty straight forward to come to the logical conclusion that from 8 weeks to birth it is a foetus, after birth till one year old it is a baby.