Every happily expecting parent I’ve ever met, me included, has referred to their fetus as “the baby”. “The baby’s kicking”, “I was singing to the baby”, “The baby is sitting on my bladder”, etc., etc. It’s near-universal… if the parent wants to have a child. The difference between pro-choice and anti-choice people, is that the former accept that a mother who doesn’t want to have a child may see things differently, and respect her choices.
In other words: just because it’s a baby to me, that doesn’t mean that it has to be a baby to you.
Whether a fetus is a baby depends entirely on the expectations of the parent. A fetus is every bit as conceptual as it is real. I remember thinking that when I had my miscarriage. What am I grieving, really? I never knew this person. Well, I’m grieving the violation of expectations, the concept of becoming a parent. That’s what “baby” means in this context. The baby unborn is what you hope it will be. Miscarriage is best framed as extreme disappointment in not getting what you wanted. It can be very traumatic depending on how badly you wanted a child. Seems like it’s probably evolutionary. The more attached you are to your offspring before it is born, the more likely you are to take care of yourself while pregnant. That’s my theory.
Of course when I did have my miscarriage half a dozen people came out of the woodwork to pitch their pro-life views to me. Shockingly, it didn’t make me more sympathetic to their cause.
All arguments about abortion fall on deaf ears. The only exceptions I can think of is that young people tend to see the world in simplistic terms and sometimes get how complicated life is as they mature. I imagine many high school students were were “pro life” took a more nuance view after spending some time in college (and perhaps spending some time being sexually active)
Some voters are single–issue voters. Whether it’s gun control, abortion, climate change, Cuba, or something else, that’s the issue that matters to them, and the rest is background noise.
Yes, both words are descended from Portuguese “embaraçar”, which means to entangle, like a rope does (from Arabic “marasa” for rope). Extended to entangling hair and then to the shame of tangled hair being seen. English, via French, took this version. Spanish took it a step farther to refer to pregnancy.
It seems so. The English embarrassed is derived from the French embarrasser, wich was loaned from the Spanish embarazar, which derives from the old Leonés/Portuguese embaraçar, which seems to go back Latin in and baraça, noose, meaning the woman is tied, perhaps via the umbilical cord (very speculative in my eyes, but the internet is always right). When you are embarrassed in English it seems you are tied up in knots and cannot find your way out of a bad situation.
In French being pregnant is already not called embarrasser or embarrasée, the meaning of embarrasser is as in English being embarrassed. Embarrass for pregnancy stayed in Spanish and Catalan, but went no further. Pregnacy in French is grossese, which is related to being “big”, as a mother’s belly becomes. But there is also to be pregnant, être enceinte, which also has a relation with being tied up, as cinta in Spanish means ribbon (in French it has lost this meaning, it seems, but they kept the in-ribbon in enceinte: being tied up with a ribbon. Not the same knot as the English “to tie the knot”, that usually comes first). The English is more directly biological: pregnant = pre, before, natality, birth.
The Spanish estoy embarazada can mean both I am pregnant and I am embarrassed, the Spanish estoy embarazado can only mean I am embarrassed for biological reasons.
/hijack
As long as we’re harping on word choices. Referring to an expectant father as a sperm donor is pretty rude, right? I’ve only heard sperm donor used in two contexts. The first is someone who donates their sperm so someone else can use it for artificial insemination. The other is a pejorative used to describe a dead beat dad who has nothing to do with their offspring.
'Zactly. There’s room to cut @scudsucker some slack for not being USAian and so different cultural expectations. But overall , there’s lots to disagree with in the idea he expressed.
IMO “We’re pregnant” is a bit twee, but it’s leaning into the idea that men are not merely part of conception, but also a fundamental part of carrying the kid to term, and the subsequent raising of it for ~20 years.
I’d far rather have men expressing that sentiment than the “sperm donor” sentiment.
An analogy. When I had a house I did a lot of DIY. And very often my wife assisted. Carrying stuff, handing me tools, holding stuff in position while I attached the whosis to the whatsis. Yep, “We put up that bookshelf”. Not “I put up that bookshelf”.
Pretty much a slightly refined version of “baby daddy”. The implication is that this man only contributed sperm or is only the biological father, not part of the parenting team.
BTW and back to the thread title, let’s bear in mind that the rise of RW nationalist populism is NOT by any means an exclusively USA phenomenon.
In too many other places, segments of the population have also been showing themselves vulnerable to the “well, so how has all that ‘liberal democracy’ stuff been working for you in real daily life?” message.
Suggesting that maybe, just maybe, some malign actors from the non-democracies are expending a lot of effort to push the same message everywhere, just mildly recast in details and translated into the local language.
With some help from whatever faction of locals wants to ride that wave into power.
There’s a part of me (the conspiratorial part) that wonders if all this is some kind of Kremlin/Beijing scheme for destabilizing the West.
I see way too many posts on Reddit/social media that are not only critical of our governments, but that are anti-democratic/anti-capitalist for them to have sprung out of nowhere fully-formed. They’re not well-coordinated, but why would they be? More chaos comes from having one group glom onto the whole “late stage capitalism bad/socialism good” message, and another glomming onto the “liberal democracy is weak; authoritarianism is strong and good” message.
Something just isn’t sitting right with it; I don’t know if it’s actually conspiratorial, but it sure seems weird, and this whole “Well, how has all that liberal democracy stuff been working for you in real daily life?” kind of thing seems to dovetail in an unusually similar way.
There is no doubt that foreign powers are exploiting and amplifying dissension in the West, but they are not creating it, only using what’s already here. The Soviets were documented having propaganda systems targeting us. (And it’s not like the U.S. didn’t help out dissidents in the Soviet bloc.) The covers slip from time to time, like the Russian funding of the NRA and the California independence movement. Or the recent reveal of many pro-Trump Xwitter feeds originating in non-Western locales.
What I’m saying is that it seems like foreign propaganda farms are planting seed ideas and echoing them, and then other local people pick up on them and amplify them. Or maybe the other way around in some cases.
Either way, it seems like a lot of ideas that were anathema and laughable a mere 15 years ago are now mainstream among younger people. I am skeptical enough to think that there’s been an undirected sea change in how younger people think about things like the merits of capitalism and our democratic process. In fact, the general ignorance of many of the posters makes me believe they’re parroting someone else’s ideas. And who would have a vested interest in sowing that sort of discord? Foreign actors like the Russians and Chinese.