But now you’re being slippery, moving the goalposts. You used that “the thing isn’t even a human” line in response to HD’s reference to a fetus. We’re not talking about a clump of cells here.
And I was defending your rights even while you seek to deprive others of theirs. I could clarify at length a little later if necessary. In any case, I can’t picture exactly how I would end up regretting your choice of rhetorical device.
I was responding to his clarification that the term “human child” was being used as inclusive to **pre-**fetal things.
In actual fact the point at which the thingy transitions from “a bunch of human cells exhibiting some life functions and possibly arranged in the rough shape of a badly mutated humanoid” to “a human” is both debatable and highly contested, and arbitrarily calling the thing in there a human at various arbitrary points (particularly early points) is assuming your conclusion.
Technology will have to do a very great deal of advancing. Currently, severely premature infants are very often also severely damaged. We have nothing remotely resembling the technology necessary to just pop a fetus out of one womb and into another one, either human or artificial; which is the only way it seems to me to make sense to talk about the ‘adoption’ of second trimester fetuses.
The commonly accepted neutral meanings are, depending on stage, ‘zygote’, ‘blastula’, ‘embryo’, and ‘fetus’.
In casual conversation that’s not discussing the legality or morality of abortion, people often do refer to any of those stages of development as a ‘baby’ or ‘child’. But in conversations that are discussing the legality and/or morality of abortion, doing so is an attempt to bend the conversation in a particular direction. Words most certainly do have meanings; and using them in that way isn’t neutral.
Insisting on “fetus” rather than “baby” or “child” is also “an attempt to bend the conversation in a particular direction.”
Which is why in threads lately I’ve been using “thingy”.
Except that it is a fetus, NOT a child OR a baby, so, actually, no you’re mistaken. Fetus IS the medical/neutral term.
Fetus may be the “medical” term, but I don’t know that that necessarily makes it a “neutral” term. As noted above, it’s quite common to refer to the “thingy” as a “baby” or “child”. And in Georgia (again, see thread title) “unborn child” is the legal term. Why are medical terms any more valid than legal terms for discussion?
Do you honestly believe that we will adopt your coercive terminology just because the correct terms upset you?
So what?
That doesn’t suggest it’s a neutral term. Rather, since the law was written by people who are anti-abortion, it’s fair to assume they chose terminology they think favors their position.
I didn’t say, and don’t think, it’s a “neutral” term (and neither is “fetus”). In terms of abortion, and the fight over what to label the baby/thingy/human/person/fetus/unborn child, I don’t think I’ve heard a term that I’d consider “neutral”. Everything used is “an attempt to bend the conversation in a particular direction.”
Thingy is the best I can do, man! Look what I have to work with!
So if both of us are supposedly using loaded terminology, at what point do you quit insisting that we use your preferred terms?
Honestly, “thingy” is one of the better attempts at finding a neutral-ish word. Kudos to you.
It’ll still get some pro-lifers upset for trying to ignore / downplay the basic human nature of the “thingy”, but it does have the advantage of sidestepping a lot of the connotations that come along with words like “baby” or “fetus”.
Let’s start with a simpler question first: at what point did I ever “insist” that “we” start using my preferred terms?
I admit bemusement at the apparently weighty baggage that comes with using “fetus”.
The label is academic anyway. Its location inside the body of an unwilling host is the issue.
The ‘y’ is on the end to lighten the tone and soften any untoward implications. (Compare calling it a “thing”.)
“I” “would” “like” “it” “if” “you” “would” “just” “tell” “us” “what” “terminology” “doesn’t” “get” “your” “panties” “in” “a” “bunch”.
And I think it’s mostly effective at that. Really, I think your usage of it comes across to me as a sincere attempt at good-faith discussion.