William T Goodall wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote:
...
>> William--
>>
>> No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children,
>> very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and
>> who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA.
>
> No it doesn't. Children have been born.
And being born makes a big difference? Why?
There's a continuum. It starts at conception, or first
cell division, or whatever. (I guess you want to say
"at implantation"?) It goes up to around the onset of
puberty. Beings are called "children" in most of that
continuum.
So it is reasonable to take the word "children", and use
it to describe beings from conception through puberty.
Do you have a better term?
> Our culture starts measuring age from birth, not conception. I believe
> some cultures do measure age from conception but not ours.
For the purposes of this discussion, it makes more sense
to start at conception. Unlike some people, I think it
would help to have some clarity.
> If you start counting zygotes as children then IUDs and morning after
> pills are infanticide. That's just wackjob wingnut daft.
Well, they are preventing things from living. It's a big
leap to claim that's the same as killing, and another to
proclaim that whatever was "killed" was an infant. I suggest
that it's more effective to target the holes in an opposing
argument, rather than to just fight blindly.
---David
So why do people say "unborn child"? Maru.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
