Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

seamustheseagull t1_ixqxr8x wrote

Reply to comment by croninsiglos in Pregnant women exposed to alcohol are at a significantly greater risk of developing post-partum depression, meta-analysis shows. by Respawan

It's weird. Is it a translation issue?

I assumed they used the word "exposed" specifically to avoid confusion with consumption - e.g. to include women who spent a lot of time socialising with drinkers during their pregnancy.

But no, they mean "women who consumed alcohol", not "women who were exposed to alcohol". That means something different.

107

croninsiglos t1_ixqzpn0 wrote

When talking about pregnant women people typically use “exposed” when referring to the child which wouldn’t make sense in that context.

29

delk82 t1_ixrthlz wrote

Referring to the what?

−11

croninsiglos t1_ixs8qqj wrote

Studies referring to fetal exposure to alcohol.

11

delk82 t1_ixsvhtq wrote

Ah there it is. Dehumanize the baby.

−40

annoying-throwaway t1_ixsza3p wrote

All mammals have a fetal development stage. What are you on about?

15

delk82 t1_ixt0ela wrote

They said child originally when referring to a child in the womb. Revealing the subconscious slip that shows that we all know on some level that unborn babies are in fact babies. Then they changed it to “fetus” when I called it out.

−31

Just_thefacts_jack t1_ixtjk0k wrote

First of all this conversation has nothing to do with reproductive rights so please stop.

Second of all, people who believe in reproductive rights for women don't deny that fetuses will eventually develop into babies/children. Using the word fetus is not a strategic choice meant to dehumanize, it's scientific terminology meant to differentiate The stages of development between egg, embryo, fetus, and baby.

You're creating a ridiculous straw man and you look foolish doing it.

12

LookImBehindYou t1_ixv2zd5 wrote

The difference between a baby and a fetus is one of location/environment, not development. People tend to think of them as different stages with fetus coming first and baby following it (which, to be fair, is how it usually works), yet one woman can have a fetus that is actually older than a baby.

Lastly, depending on how adventurous the doctor is and how open to new experiences the mother is, you can even have a fetus with no rights who becomes a baby and inherits the rights of a person in that jurisdiction, who then turns back into a fetus who would lose their rights in some jurisdictions while retaining them in others.

1

delk82 t1_ixtmoaq wrote

Do I look foolish or do you just disagree with me?

−5

delk82 t1_ixtncum wrote

“Reproductive rights”, another manipulation of words to make it sound better than what it is.

−8

Cyphierre t1_ixt2213 wrote

> we all know on some level that unborn babies are in fact babies.

Huh? If you had a fetus in your arms would you be unsure whether it was actually a baby instead?

7

delk82 t1_ixt5eg6 wrote

No need to keep playing dumb

−14

arxaquila t1_ixrttx8 wrote

An excess of PC. Someone should do a metadata analysis of effects of over abundance of PC on stress.

−10