The Tale of 2 headlines

on Aug 10, 2005

Ah yes.....the media using semantics to make things more palpable for the general public. Using the word 'baby' to give us the warm fuzzies about a panda, but being all clinical and using words like 'fetus' for a different circumstance.
Sickening, really

It is kind of like the symptom of the BBC refusing to call a Terrorist a terrorist, but worse. As this goes to the fear that to treat humans as, well human, is akin to professing a belief in a deity.

17

Dr Guy

on Aug 10, 2005

It is just mediocre writing by mediocre journalists trying to beat up whatever story they're given.

I think you may have hit on the exact problem. We dont have any good journalist left. Just PC Hacks.

18

Dr Guy

on Aug 10, 2005

unless, of course, the 2nd panda died after being fully formed to the point where it could have been delivered and was therefore stillborn.

The Fetus in question was fully formed, so what is your point? YOu are trying to excuse what really is unexcuseable, and it really does not become you. Defend the defensible, not some hack who is afraid of being called pro choice just because he calls a human baby a baby.

19

Dr Guy

on Aug 10, 2005

I think kingbee is on the right track here. The panda story is referring to a foetus/baby that was in the process of being born. The human story is referring to a developing foetus, in the months prior to birth.

Then you are attributing more to kingbee than he said. The child in question was taken by cesearian within days of this. they wanted to keep it longer, but complications developed.

The Panda in question died in the womb. It never lived outside the womb. Hence it should be a fetus as well according to the butchers of NARAL. But since it was not human, it was safe to call it a baby.

Sad when people instill more rights and life upon animals than upon humans.

20

HC1240

on Aug 10, 2005

Sad when people instill more rights and life upon animals than upon humans.

Can you say "PETA"?

Pathetic "Equalists" Touting Awareness

21

philomedy

on Aug 10, 2005

The panda story is referring to a foetus/baby that was in the process of being born. The human story is referring to a developing foetus, in the months prior to birth.

After re-reading the two headlines, I see Champas's point here...although I would really need to read the whole article to be able to get a correct sense of the situations, it does seem that the panda story is referring to a panda baby who was ready to be born, but for some reason, died in the womb before birth. The human story seems to be pointing to a time at least 3 months prior to the baby being born. I don't see why the headline couldn't have read "to give her baby more time to develop", but there does seem to be a difference between the two headlines now that I didn't see before.

22

Dr Guy

on Aug 10, 2005

Can you say "PETA"?

Pathetic "Equalists" Touting Awareness

Best definition yet.

23

Dr Guy

on Aug 10, 2005

The human story seems to be pointing to a time at least 3 months prior to the baby being born.

No, the story was about a newborn baby, but they are still calling it a fetus.

24

philomedy

on Aug 10, 2005

given birth after being kept on life support for three months to give her fetus extra time to develop.

The way I see it, this could also be read as saying that, at the time 3 months ago when the mother was kept on life support, her child was a fetus. It says nothing about the mother "giving birth to a fetus." It says that the mother was "kept on life support for three months to give her fetus extra time to develop." If her child, at the time that the decision to put the mother on life support was made, still needed 3 months in order to develop enough to be born healthy, I don't think that the term fetus is misused.

You're looking at the fact that both headlines refer to children that are in the womb, one animal and one human. The difference is the timeline. The panda headline seems to say that the cub, although it died in the womb, was ready to be born, and therefore a baby. The human article, as I mentioned, seems to use the word "fetus" to refer to the time 3 months ago, when the child was not developed enough to be born healthy, and was therefore a fetus.

As I said, I would have still used the word "baby" anyways, but I don't think that the headline was intentionally attempting to subvert human life, or saying that a human child is worth any less than a bear cub.

25

Moderateman

on Aug 10, 2005

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, August 10, 2005Can you say "PETA"? Pathetic "Equalists" Touting AwarenessBest definition yet.

People Eating Tame Animals

26

Dr Guy

on Aug 10, 2005

The way I see it, this could also be read as saying that, at the time 3 months ago when the mother was kept on life support, her child was a fetus. It says nothing about the mother "giving birth to a fetus." It says that the mother was "kept on life support for three months to give her fetus extra time to develop." If her child, at the time that the decision to put the mother on life support was made, still needed 3 months in order to develop enough to be born healthy, I don't think that the term fetus is misused.

Split it anyway you want, but dont say she gave birth to a fetus. She gave birth to a baby and calling it a fetus is the PC way of saying "We wont piss off NARAL". TS! My ex miscarried a BABY, my BABY, at 3.5 months. Trust me, it was not a fetus. And the Panda? Nowhere did it say when the panda baby died. It may have been dead in the womb long before viability since pandas are so small when born. Yet it was still a baby.

It sucks, and so does the idiocy of what passes for today's journalist.

27

Dr Guy

on Aug 10, 2005

People Eating Tame Animals

Or Tasty ones. But Pathetic should be in there for the real PETA.

28

kingbee

on Aug 10, 2005

But since it was not human, it was safe to call it a baby.

go to google news and search for the keyword phrase: panda baby dies in womb and you'll see the top (and possibly only publication) that appears is THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE

if you'd not screwed up your links we coulda seen if that's where you got your information

as it turns out here's what happened in the panda's case.

"Two fetuses were detected last month during a routine check. However, on Monday the zoo's veterinary staff said one of the fetuses was reabsorbed in the womb, a process that may be common in pandas."

and here's part of an article from the catholic news agency about the burial of a spontaneously aborted fetus found in a wastewater plant in colorado.

Robert Latham was on duty at the Middlesex County Utilities Authority when the fetus was discovered in a bar screen used to catch large objects within the waterway. He reported the finding to authorities.

He said medical examiners believed a woman must have had a “spontaneous miscarriage” and flushed the fetus down the toilet.

“It just seems like [the mother] panicked and didn’t know what to do,” O’Brien told the newspaper. “We want this mother to be at peace and know that he is taken care of.”

Latham said the funeral was a “wonderful” idea. He attended, along with his wife and their six children.

The baby was to be buried in a part of the Catholic cemetery dedicated to infant deaths, but Fr. Krull decided to bury the fetus at the entrance of the cemetery instead, below a statue of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, as a reminder “of the beauty and dignity of life.”

outrageous huh? they used the word 'fetus' rather than baby three outta four times.

here's a clue. babies cry and breathe. fetuses don't

29

kingbee

on Aug 10, 2005

The Fetus in question was fully formed, so what is your point?

"Two fetuses were detected last month during a routine check. However, on Monday the zoo's veterinary staff said one of the fetuses was reabsorbed in the womb, a process that may be common in pandas."

oops i guess you were wrong.

30

kingbee

on Aug 10, 2005

The way I see it, this could also be read as saying that, at the time 3 months ago when the mother was kept on life support, her child was a fetus. It says nothing about the mother "giving birth to a fetus." It says that the mother was "kept on life support for three months to give her fetus extra time to develop." If her child, at the time that the decision to put the mother on life support was made, still needed 3 months in order to develop enough to be born healthy, I don't think that the term fetus is misused.

exactly. apparently three people know how to read and comprehend.