SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pezz who wrote (5794)3/15/2000 12:22:00 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6418
 
Look, one can obviously take this too far . There are some who claim we must all be
vegetarians as killing animals for food is immoral.


My first post on this said I was looking at purely human life forms. Beings with fully human DNA. Not chimpanzees (96+% identical DNA to humans). All my examples -- jews, indians, blacks, homosexuals -- have been genetically fully human, even if their societies denied them basic human rights or privileges. Nobody denies that the fetus or unborn child is genetically fully human. You're (deliberately, I fear) raising straw men to avoid facing the issue.

I like to call them fetuses because that's what they are by definition.,

Scientifically, yes. Socially, no. I have never heard a woman say "I'm having a fetus" or "I'm pregnant with a fetus." It's always "I'm having a baby" or "I'm having another child" or the like. And if you want to rely on definitions, The Random House Webster's College Dictionary (a dictionary used by the Washington State Supreme Court as an authority for defining non-legal terms) defines "baby: 1. an infant or very young child. 2. a human fetus...." the same dictionary defines "child" as, definition 4, "a human fetus." So I think those terms are more accurate not only because they are babies and children by dictionary definition, but also in common usage among non-scientists.