The Terminology Is Grotesque... In My Opinion!

One thing that bothers me lately is the terminology amidst the abortion/PP threads.

It's borderline gross. In my opinion.

Let's start off light...



Clump of cells.

Hmmm.

You won't desensitise me with such wording as much as you try.
It certainly won't move right wingers in the slightest either...

So I take it you do it to go below the belt, so to speak.

You know we consider these babies, people...
& you continue to use this terminology as if to dehumanise the child.

I'm therefore left with the assumption that it is a desensitisation tactic.
Or to help you sleep better.



Foetal tissue/cells

Now this, is common also, and not so bothersome...
It is true, foetal tissue/cells is/are used...
& I have no gripe with the terminology as such...

What I do question is certain times its used...
Basically someone will say "baby parts"...
And the pro choice reply will be "no, it's foetal tissue/cells"...

Well where did that tissue/those cells come from...
Yes, baby parts.

Well I won't kowtow to the PC, & again...
I will not be desensitised...



Spontaneous abortion

Now this has to be the most ghoulish of the lot...

I know a hell of a lot of women...
A majority have sadly lost a baby...

And I've only ever heard the term miscarriage in discussion.

Splitting hairs, Charlie?

Well, no...
It may be an American thing...
If so, fair enough (shudders)...

If not...
It's just another desensitising tactic in my opinion.

To abort is to manually put a stop to something...
Spontaneous is a random occurrence...
Or a sudden impulse...

How does one go about placing those two words together, other than to desensitise the debate opponent/listener/reader.



There is many more.
But I feel my rant has helped me already...
And won't drag this out.

Now, I'd rather no one attempt a bait and switch...
Or make claims that this is an appeal to emotion...
Keep the fallacies out of this thread.

I just wanted to rant on these specifics.
It's hard to read these threads and digest my own saliva...
Not just because of terminology...
I find a few things morally reprehensible in these topics...

But this was one I felt I could rant about and stick to T&Cs while doing so.


Disclaimer.
*This is not an all out attack on all people who use these terms*

It is more an attack on the terminology itself and how it's been used to desensitise people to a real moral dilemma.



/Rant.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Charlie, you're nothing more than a "clump of cells".

Just sayin'.

If I remember right we are all just bags of water

a reply to: beezzer

Pretty generic wording isn't it.

I prefer specifics.



But PC nowadays though.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think as you say it's just corperate desensetisation to detract from the truth behind the business.

Kind of like how shell shok became PTSD which is just a bunch of letters as opposed to something that can be envisioned by the layman.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: beezzer

Pretty generic wording isn't it.

I prefer specifics.



But PC nowadays though.

This has been a long time coming, in my opinion.

If you change terminology, conduct social engineering, people will follow and obey pretty much anything you through at them.

@NonSpecific & Beezzer...

I remember George Carlin did a stand up bit about that very idea...

& he was right.

As are you both.

We also say eggs instead of unborn chicken matter.

Collateral damage, insurgents, rebels, Palestine...those are words with moral dilemma.
I don't see no dilemma with other people's abortion because it isn't my life and not my damn body.

originally posted by: imod02
If I remember right we are all just bags of water

Ugly bags of mostly water was the quote I think.

I wonder, if this was a well thought out corporate discussion to desensitize people how they chose those terms? Or is it that the media just makes this s**t up to sound scientific and in the know? Alot of people I see on the news are just figure head news celebrities that probably understand very little outside their own pay checks and egos. They are not paid to critically think. I also think that a lot of American issues are not very well understood because of this, everyone is arguing with each other over which news celebrities opinion was more right then the other. and this desensitization is an unintended consequence of such, i know there is a lot of research and media manipulation especially in tv and movies

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yep.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Your problem is with people speaking clinically about these terms? That's like getting mad because a scientist called a dog a canine.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: imod02
If I remember right we are all just bags of water

Ugly bags of mostly water was the quote I think.

Yep your right STNG if im right

a reply to: theMediator

This isn't about where people stand on abortion, it's about the rancid terminology used by a section of society to try and lure others to there side in that decision.

There is a nuanced difference.


Bait and switch 101.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Your problem is with people speaking clinically about these terms? That's like getting mad because a scientist called a dog a canine.

Actually it's the opposite.

It's like a scientist avoiding the word canine and using the term clump of cells or tissue.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Your problem is with people speaking clinically about these terms? That's like getting mad because a scientist called a dog a canine.

Actually it's the opposite.

It's like a scientist avoiding the word canine and using the term clump of cells or tissue.

No it isn't. Fetus. Abortion. Spontaneous abortion. These are all clinical terms that medical professionals use to talk about these things. Just like canine. That's how it works. Scientists create terms to because they need to precisely define something without worrying about emotions.

Your problem is with scientific naming practices.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You say clinical, I say desensitising the masses.

need to precisely define something without worrying about emotions.

Your edit proves my point.

We are not robots.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

If you want to call it that, then go ahead. I've explained why these terms exist. If you don't want to accept that, that's your problem. Not mine.

Though, even if their purpose is to desensitize, maybe that's a bit necessary. Seeing how bat# insane and irrational the emotional terms make people.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, we're the "insane" ones.



Who said it was your problem?

I've never seen a documentary/show/film or real life anecdotal ultrasound in which the midwife says "here is your womb, and this part here, is your lovely clump of cells"...

Gross.