Fetus & Infant....what's the difference?

[thaiboxerken]

Recently, I was described as a "Clause" because I was asked to describe the objective and scientific differences between a fetus and an infant.

This leads me to start this poll.

Is and infant and a fetus "fundamentally" the same?

WTF does "fundamentally" mean?

[arthwollipot]

A fetus is unborn, and infant is born.

SRSLY? WTF?

[Wildy]

This is from that "abortion doctor living in fear" (or whatever it's called) thread over in Social Issues isn't it?

Yes. arthwollipot is right there, and I'll go on the record here saying that there is a difference. I think you'll find that pretty much everyone will say that there is a difference.

If this thread is indeed based on the other one, then the issue isn't that an infant and a fetus are different, but that the closer you get to birth the fewer differences there are between the two essentially become "one's inside, the other's outside". It's one of those "where to draw the line" issues.

Since the fetal stage is defined from the 11th week (gestational age) until birth it makes things very hard when it comes to drawing the line, and also to describe the differences between a fetus and an infant. (The latter isn't when given a time though...)

[athon]

There are no such things as classifications in nature. There is a spectrum of differences, and to make it easier to communicate them, we use terms that are forced to find delineation points.

Fundamentally, green and yellow are just how our brains interpret the cascade of chemical reactions resulting from interactions with different wavelengths. We find it convenient to categorise them according to some arbitrary delineation point.

Post-natal individuals are generally referred to as infants. Ante-natal individuals with organs that contain all of the right tissues (even if they are still maturing) are foetuses. Before this, they are embryos. We find it convenient and useful to communicate these stages using terms.

(not having read the other thread, I'm also not sure on the relevance of this to anything)

Athon

[Dancing David]

the people who want to make the distimction go away probably have a political agenda. Labels are self referencing and idiomatic. They won't answer when you ask "Are chimps 97% human?" either.

[Professor Yaffle]

Other than their location, the main difference is in how they take in nutrients and oxygen.

And how much you have to spend on nappies.

[blutoski]

There's also two relevant implied logical fallacies:

• corrupt continuum
• naturalistic fallacy

The first fallacy is the assumption that if there's no discreet distinction, then there's no real distinction. An argument using that same type of reasoning would be to point out that since there's no real difference between an eighteen year old and a nineteen year old (or a twenty and twenty-one year old), that there should be no minimum drinking age. Or that since there's no clear cut time when a child becomes an adult, that there is no such thing as a child or an adult.

The second is the assumption that there is a precise mapping of categories between nature and human values. This just isn't the case, since most categorization takes place in the human mind for our convenience. eg: what's the difference between a planet and a trans-Neptunian object? (answer: whatever we want it to be)

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by blutoski

The first fallacy is the assumption that if there's no discreet distinction, then there's no real distinction.

I agree with this, loud mouthed, tactless distinctions are real too.

[linusrichard]

This poll would be totally helpful to you if RandFan had taken the position that there was no difference between a fetus and an infant. Since he didn't, it isn't. His point was that choosing birth as the bright-line delineation between no right to life (as against mother's right to abort) and right to life is arbitrary. You might want to address that instead.

[thaiboxerken]

Nope. Randfan made the claim that there is no objective or scientific difference between a fetus and an infant. It was in retrospect that he added the 'fundamentally" different qualifier, whatever that means.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Other than their location, the main difference is in how they take in nutrients and oxygen.

And how much you have to spend on nappies.

I've always wondered. If babies are taking nourishment in the womb, are they taking it at 100% efficiency with no waste? Basically, do they poop in the womb?

[athon]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Nope. Randfan made the claim that there is no objective or scientific difference between a fetus and an infant. It was in retrospect that he added the 'fundamentally" different qualifier, whatever that means.

In which case, it's context dependent.

In the context of feeding the individual, the difference is important. A foetus gets nutrients from the mother's placenta, while an infant gets nutrients from the mother's breast/external source.

In the context of 'right to life', it depends on a person's own values regarding life. Values aren't objective, nor do they require validating. If an arbitrary categorisation makes all the difference to you, go for it.

Athon

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not only are you misrepresenting RandFan's position as far as I can make out, you also haven't flagged this subthread in the original thread, and the poll options are rigged.

While I agree with your conclusion insofar as I'm in favour of it being legal to abort up until the time of birth, I think the way you're arguing for that conclusion is not fair, honest or reasonable.

[thaiboxerken]

I made a claim that there are definite, objective and scientific differences between a fetus and an infant. Randfan challenged my claim and asked me to list those differences. When I did so, he said that he didn't accept those differences, as they were not "fundamental." How am I misrepresenting his position.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I made a claim that there are definite, objective and scientific differences between a fetus and an infant. Randfan challenged my claim and asked me to list those differences. When I did so, he said that he didn't accept those differences, as they were not "fundamental." How am I misrepresenting his position.

As I understand it, he's explicitly and repeatedly confirmed that those differences exist.

What you disagree with him about is whether those objective, scientific differences justify a philosophical decision that it's okay to kill one but not the other.

You're saying "Fetuses differ from newborns in ways X, Y and Z, therefore it's okay to abort fetuses but not okay to kill newborns".

RandFan is saying "I agree that fetuses differ from newborns in ways X, Y and Z, but it doesn't seem to me that those differences make it okay to kill one but not the other".

Now I'll go so far as to say this: If you've actually identified differences between a fetus and a newborn that most people will agree justify killing one but not the other, you've made a profound breakthrough in the abortion debate. Nobody's ever successfully done that before. Everyone who's tried has come up against the awkward fact that there is simply no difference between a fetus on one end of the birth canal and a fetus on the other end of a kind that we usually think matters.

An example of a thing we usually think matters is consciousness. Permanently comatose meat-lumps like Terry Schiavo are fair game to have the plug pulled on them according to mainstream medical ethics because they have no consciousness and they never will. But a fetus has just as much consciousness as a newborn, so it doesn't differ from a newborn in that one way that we think matters.

What you need to do is identify a difference of a kind that we usually think matters between fetuses and newborns. Good luck with that. I don't think there is one.

That or you need to find a new tack on the abortion argument, because the one you've taken doesn't work.