The Tale of 2 headlines

Speaks volumes

from JoeUser Forums

Here are 2 headlines from that AP:

"A 13-year-old giant panda gave birth to a cub at San Diego Zoo, but a second baby died in the womb, officials said Wednesday."--Associated Press, Aug. 3

"A cancer-ravaged woman robbed of consciousness by a stroke has given birth after being kept on life support for three months to give her fetus extra time to develop."--Associated Press, Aug. 3

Note both are from the same day.  Also note that an unborn panda is a baby, but a child born to a brain dead woman is still a fetus.

This is your brain.  This is your brain on stupidity.

Any questions?

6,289 views 55 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess we should be glad they did not call for the post partum abortion of the 'fetus'.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
unrelated....Christpher Reeves' widow was just diagnosed with lung cancer...sad.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Weird... I guess when it's still in the womb it's a fetus and when it's born it's a baby?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Weird... I guess when it's still in the womb it's a fetus and when it's born it's a baby?

Look closer. 

but a second baby died in the womb

Only if it is an animal is it a baby.  If it is human. it is a fetus.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Very sad.

PC on parade. And it is sickening.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The second headline appears to have been written by some sort of lower life form anyways. What the hell is "robbed of consciousness by a stroke."??? And "cancer-ravaged"??? How about just "A woman, rendered comatose by a stroke and also afflicted with cancer, has given birth..." and so on. Do we really need to be told that cancer ravages or that strokes can rob you of your consciousness. I think we're smart enough to realize how serious her situation was without this particular reporter's sensationalistic buzzwords.

That said, I see your point, too.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

That said, I see your point, too.

Rant away.  And thank you. 

It is very saddening to see them like this, both on the same day.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like Philomedy, I have had a problem with sensationalist language for quite some time. So many journalists use it these days, but I find it makes it harder to take anything they say seriously. It is just mediocre writing by mediocre journalists trying to beat up whatever story they're given.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
beat up? or beef up?

Low substance generally = flowery words
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
unrelated....Christpher Reeves' widow was just diagnosed with lung cancer...sad.


Very sad. She wasn't a smoker, was she?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
unless, of course, the 2nd panda died after being fully formed to the point where it could have been delivered and was therefore stillborn.

a stillborn human is buried.

a miscarried (spontaneously aborted) fetus isn't.

prior to being viable outside the womb, a mammalian fetus is a fetus. they didn't say the woman gave birth to a fetus did they?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
beat up? or beef up?


Take your pick...
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.

Try again. (And yes, I know the law has a contradiction on that, and we could debate it for hours).
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sad when people instill more rights and life upon animals than upon humans.


Can you say "PETA"?

Pathetic "Equalists" Touting Awareness
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Can you say "PETA"?

Pathetic "Equalists" Touting Awareness

Best definition yet.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, August 10, 2005Can you say "PETA"? Pathetic "Equalists" Touting AwarenessBest definition yet.


People Eating Tame Animals