Fwtus us Latin for baby. No difference except in the minds of those rationalizing murder and the selling of baby parts.
Actually the Latin core root is of the young while in the womb, but was used in literature to expand into a bringing forth of the young, as in offspring.
This more likely resulted from a respect, now long since past, for the baby still in the womb as a person. In times past they saw no difference, a baby to be was as respected as offspring as the baby in the carriage.
The definition of fetus as an unborn mammal predates by centuries the acceptability of abortion, and there is no correlation between the medical definition and the modern blood culture of madam Sanger.
My point remains the same.
The continuing use of the term fetus by Ms. Fiorina, shows either a) an indoctrination into the modern culture of acceptable speech, or b) a shallow attempt to use careful and discreet language to appeal to people so indoctrinated.
A child, alive and on the table, ex-utero, is by proper medical definition no longer a fetus, as a fetus is by definition in-utero and unborn.
The child alive on the table has been born, is no longer a fetus, and is properly defined as a baby.
If Ms. Fiorina truly wants to hammer this point home, she would do well to revisit her use of acceptable speech and the PC extension of Fetus to any child not yet accepted by the mother.