# Should fetuses and embryos have been counted in the Census? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2001, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647 "2001-08-16T22:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/21 "2001-08-20T14:36:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Maeglin, we have been through this before, but when you are wrong, repeating something makes no difference whatsoever. This is certainly true when one person tells you that you are wrong. But if _three_ people tell you are a jackass, as the proverb goes, you had better start looking for your ears. I believe that **Sua** , **Kimstu** , and myself are all asking you to show us the money, as it were. > [@](#): > > Possibly it is even more difficult to count them to count the homeless. Possibly because they are a separate category of people and do not detract from the accuracy of the overall count if they are skipped. Whatever the reason, it is undoubtedly due to practical considerations and not to theoretical considerations about the human status of a fetus. I assume that you have _some_ kind of cite or criterion by which you claim that fetuses are more difficult to count than homeless. **Sua** proposed a scenario by which it is extremely easy to count them, and other than vague dismissals, you have failed to make any substantive claims. And as we all seem to agree that counting fetuses is valuable for planning, the established function of the census, perhaps you could explain to the class how failure to count them does not detract from the census’ overall accuracy. Your final sentence is most telling. It looks like a form of the _argumentum ad antiquitatem_ fallacy. “Undoubtedly” there’s a reason why the Bureau has been conducting the census one way for such a long time, which _causa sui_ justifies it. When writers employ words like “surely” and “undoubtedly,” it usually means that they have no proof. MR ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/22 "2001-08-20T15:22:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > I assume that you have _some_ kind of cite or criterion by which you claim that fetuses are more difficult to count than homeless. **Sua** proposed a scenario by which it is extremely easy to count them, and other than vague dismissals, you have failed to make any substantive claims. And as we all seem to agree that counting fetuses is valuable for planning, the established function of the census, perhaps you could explain to the class how failure to count them does not detract from the census’ overall accuracy. Your assumption is incorrect, as I have no cite of any sort. You may have overlooked my use of the word “Possibly”. Also your statement that “we all seem to agree” etc. is incorrect. I don’t know if I agree to that, but haven’t bothered to think about it due to it’s incredible irrelevance, to this point. (I would note, off the top of my head, that the number of fetuses would only affect population in the next nine months. Demographics experts probably have a good notion of the birth rate without resorting to counting fetuses. The significance of the census is that it takes place every 10 years, and is affected by numerous factors - e.g. immigration - which makes the numbers harder to predict). Whereas planning is **one of** the established functions of the census, this does not imply that anything related to planning is part of the census. Even if one considers fetuses to be fully human, they are a separate and distinct category of humans, more so than the homeless. Thus a census that ignores this category is not incomplete in the manner of a census that ignores the homeless. > [@](#): > > I believe that **Sua** , **Kimstu** , and myself are all asking you to show us the money, as it were. Somehow, I think it works the opposite way around. Before you start demanding that people show you the money, you have to provide some basis for your demand. In this case, it would be a compelling reason why the census is dependent on human status as opposed to other considerations. So far the only one who has even attempted this is Sua, who tried to derive it from the Constitution, but this is wrong, as I’ve noted. You yourself have not even addressed this issue, strangely. In any event, the idea that the amount of people on the side of an issue is of paramount importance is not a particularly strong one, and I don’t usually pay much attention to it. (Especially in cases such as this, when the ideological subtext is obvious, and all the debaters break down along these lines, but also in general). > [@](#): > > Your final sentence is most telling. It looks like a form of the _argumentum ad antiquitatem_ fallacy. “Undoubtedly” there’s a reason why the Bureau has been conducting the census one way for such a long time, which _causa sui_ justifies it. When writers employ words like “surely” and “undoubtedly,” it usually means that they have no proof. Hey, what a revelation. Of course I have no proof. I can assure you that if I would have proof I would not have kept it from you, you being the type of person that I feel can be entrusted with proofs of matters like this. But neither do you have any proof of your position, and until you can provide some basis that the reason for fetuses have not been counted is that they lack human status (in a moral sense as relates to abortion - as per the OP), I am quite comfortable acting likewise. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/23 "2001-08-20T16:14:08Z")
> [@](#): > > You may have overlooked my use of the word “Possibly”. Also your statement that “we all seem to agree” etc. is incorrect. I don’t know if I agree to that, but haven’t bothered to think about it due to it’s incredible irrelevance, to this point. I did not overlook your use of the word “possibly,” I simply remarked that suppositions are not really the stuff of argument, and that if you were going to try to make a compelling case, such suppositions are not all that effective. Apparently, by your own admission, you weren’t. I don’t believe the planning aspect is irrelevant, as the census is conducted in the first place for purely planning purposes. If, in fact, counting fetuses _would_ be utile _and_ practical, there must be other reasons why it is not instituted. It supplies valuable up-to-the-moment birthrate data. When cross-referenced with ethnic and economic data, fetus counting would assist governmental family planning and sex education efforts immeasurably. Is there a more effective way of assessing teenage pregancy rates? In your first post, you argued: > [@](#): > > The census counts those who it is relevant and convenient to count. Which you justified by saying: > [@](#): > > . Possibly because they are a separate category of people and do not detract from the accuracy of the overall count if they are skipped. Whatever the reason, it is undoubtedly due to practical considerations and not to theoretical considerations about the human status of a fetus. So because fetuses are not presently being counted, and have never before been counted in the census, it is therefore irrelevant. Since you have previously argued that the census counts what is practical and what is relevant _and_ myself and others have argued _why_ a fetus count would be practical and relevant, I think it is time for you either to refute these two lines of analysis or move to more ideological terrain, namely, that fetuses are simply not people. > [@](#): > > Whereas planning is one of the established functions of the census, this does not imply that anything related to planning is part of the census. Even if one considers fetuses to be fully human, they are a separate and distinct category of humans, more so than the homeless. Thus a census that ignores this category is not incomplete in the manner of a census that ignores the homeless. Of course “anything relating to planning” does not have to be counted. Cracks in the sidewalk are relevant to planning, but are rather outside the scope of the census. I believe that posters here have presented a case for a genuine state interest in expanding the count, and I would humbly request that those who disagree and wish to continue the argument debate us on these terms. I am also extremely interested in your thoughts on the “categories of humans.” I suspect that they are quite arbitrary, as all taxonomies inevitably are. I do not wish to preempt your remarks, but I believe I could make a strong case for an economic taxonomy in which fetuses and homeless are in exactly the same category. > [@](#): > > Somehow, I think it works the opposite way around. Before you start demanding that people show you the money, you have to provide some basis for your demand. In this case, it would be a compelling reason why the census is dependent on human status as opposed to other considerations. So far the only one who has even attempted this is Sua, who tried to derive it from the Constitution, but this is wrong, as I’ve noted. > > You yourself have not even addressed this issue, strangely There are two possibilities here. I have presented practical issues why fetuses should be counted. **Sua** has essayed the Constitution, and in my opinion, has hardly been proven wrong. “Framers’ intent” is hardly a magic wand: one cannot merely say “Framers _non volunt_,” and dismiss constitutional arguments out of hand. If abortion were a vital ideological issue upon which the Framers remarked directly, then this would surely be an adequate recourse for the purposes of argument. We are left only with the wording of the Constitution, which must be applied to the _present_. Since the Census Bureau, certainly not as unchanging and monumental as the Constitution, has not _actively_ interpreted the Constitution one way or another regarding fetuses at all, I don’t see how some brazen judicial activism would do such violence to the Constitution as you seem to imply. > [@](#): > > In any event, the idea that the amount of people on the side of an issue is of paramount importance is not a particularly strong one, and I don’t usually pay much attention to it. (Especially in cases such as this, when the ideological subtext is obvious, and all the debaters break down along these lines, but also in general). Absolutely true. The _argumentum ad populum_, or the Appeal to the Gallery. I would sheepishly withdraw it. > [@](#): > > But neither do you have any proof of your position, and until you can provide some basis that the reason for fetuses have not been counted is that they lack human status (in a moral sense as relates to abortion - as per the OP), I am quite comfortable acting likewise. Again, if I can show a state interest to count them _and_ that interest is rejected, what remains _but_ some ideological reason? Hence the utility of Counting Fetuses, an excellent if derivative name for a band, is entirely relevant. Franky, I _do_ believe that fetuses lack human status. Yet it would also be relevant to count them. Why can’t those who oppose counting fetuses reconcile these two opinions? MR ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/24 "2001-08-20T17:20:06Z")
There seems to be some confusion regarding my use of the term relevant. I have not asserted that counting fetuses is irrelevant. Rather that the issue of whether there exists a valid reason to count them is irrelevant to this discussion. As I see it there are 4 possible positions. 1. Fetuses are to be considered humans from a moral standpoint. Counting fetuses in the census is both relevant and practical, so they should be counted. 1b. Fetuses are to be considered humans from a moral standpoint. Counting fetuses in the census not both relevant and practical, so they should not be counted. 1. Fetuses are not to be considered humans from a moral standpoint. Counting fetuses in the census is both relevant and practical, so they should be counted. 2b. Fetuses are not to be considered humans from a moral standpoint. Counting fetuses in the census is not both relevant and practical, so they should not be counted. As I see it, the counting of fetuses is decided solely in the second sentence, so the first may be ignored, in contradiction to this OP. > [@](#): > > Again, if I can show a state interest to count them and that interest is rejected, what remains but some ideological reason? So you don’t have any evidence that this is the reason - only that you disagree with other potential reasons and have eliminated them. OK, well I disagree with the ideological reason and have eliminated it by the same logic. Strangely, you too seem to disagree with the ideological reason as well > [@](#): > > Franky, I do believe that fetuses lack human status. Yet it would also be relevant to count them. So IOW, _you_ think it would be relevant to count them despite lacking human status, but have nonetheless decided that the reason they must have never been counted must be due to the lack of human status. 😕 > [@](#): > > I am also extremely interested in your thoughts on the “categories of humans.” I suspect that they are quite arbitrary, as all taxonomies inevitably are. I do not wish to preempt your remarks, but I believe I could make a strong case for an economic taxonomy in which fetuses and homeless are in exactly the same category I think the differences are many (breathing and eating spring to mind), but the main difference is likely the fact that they are inside another person, which means they are invisible and are not leading independent lives. > [@](#): > > “Framers’ intent” is hardly a magic wand: one cannot merely say “Framers non volunt,” and dismiss constitutional arguments out of hand. If abortion were a vital ideological issue upon which the Framers remarked directly, then this would surely be an adequate recourse for the purposes of argument. We are left only with the wording of the Constitution, which must be applied to the present. I would imagine that our positions on framer’s intents would diverge based on our respective political ideologies. But I take vigorous exception to your assertion that the wording of the Constitution must be applied to the present. Does this mean that as the _language_ evolves the Constitution evolves with it? That if the word “right” came to mean “wrong” over time the Bill of Rights would be reversed? You may wish to reconsider this. Beyond that, I don’t think the meaning of the word person has actually come to mean fetus in general usage. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/25 "2001-08-20T18:13:35Z")
> [@](#): > > There seems to be some confusion regarding my use of the term relevant. I have not asserted that counting fetuses is irrelevant. Rather that the issue of whether there exists a valid reason to count them is irrelevant to this discussion. Likewise I have asserted that it is crucial to this discussion _if you are anti-choice_ yet feel that fetuses should not be counted. > [@](#): > > So you don’t have any evidence that this is the reason - only that you disagree with other potential reasons and have eliminated them. OK, well I disagree with the ideological reason and have eliminated it by the same logic. Strangely, you too seem to disagree with the ideological reason as well. **Izzy** , the four possible cases you have outlined indicate that, barring personal and instutitional reasons in the Census Bureau, the only issues of any real importance are utility and ideology. I never claimed that the Census Bureau dismissed fetus counting on ideological reasons. This issue is in the realm purely hypothetical debate, and I am obviously trying to pin you down to admitting some kind of contradiction between your beliefs on abortion and your views on the nature of the census. If you are in fact not anti-choice like I suspect that you are, do say so now and I will quit barking up the wrong tree. Until then, I am _still_ waiting for you to deal with my substantive arguments regarding the utility of an expanded census count. I am not entirely sure of the point that you are trying to make in the above quoted section. > [@](#): > > As I see it, the counting of fetuses is decided solely in the second sentence, so the first may be ignored, in contradiction to this OP. The OP is only **one sentence long**. It is not the presentation of an argument, or a spefic demarcation of discussion. It merely invites comment. Hence the first sentence in each of your cases is hardly irrelevant to such an openended OP. Even if it were, why should you feel so constrained by the OP that you would be unwilling to consider all aspects of this issue? > [@](#): > > So IOW, you think it would be relevant to count them despite lacking human status, but have nonetheless decided that the reason they must have never been counted must be due to the lack of human status. No. I am not sure how you have constructed this from the passage you quoted. I have no intention of divining the historical motivations of the Census Bureau. Like I said, I am trying to force you, or anyone else interested in participating in or lurking this discussion, to admit that _yes_, fetuses are people, but _no_, they should be kept out of the census. Or that _yes_, fetuses are people, and _yes_, they should be included in the census. And why. > [@](#): > > I think the differences are many (breathing and eating spring to mind), but the main difference is likely the fact that they are inside another person, which means they are invisible and are not leading independent lives. The homeless are so invisible that urban dwellers pretend they don’t exist when they walk by. Their lives are utterly dependent on the vigor of urban social programs and the scraps thrown to them by strangers. Their voices are mute on Election Day, and they have no representatives in the City Council. They are neither visible nor independent. So the only category we have so far is that they are not “inside another person.” How is this criterion remotely relevant to a census count? How is there an intrinsic connection between this category and relevance to the census? > [@](#): > > I would imagine that our positions on framer’s intents would diverge based on our respective political ideologies. But I take vigorous exception to your assertion that the wording of the Constitution must be applied to the present. Does this mean that as the language evolves the Constitution evolves with it? That if the word “right” came to mean “wrong” over time the Bill of Rights would be reversed? You may wish to reconsider this. > > Beyond that, I don’t think the meaning of the word person has actually come to mean fetus in general usage. There is a difference between arguing what the word “is” means and in making meaningful sense out of an **artificially** monumental document. The Framers are quite dead, and no longer have any say or share in the state of our republic. While their intent is often extremely useful in charting the legal course of this country, as it were, I don’t believe that there is any “controlling legal authority” to be slaves to _their_ own words, which we likewise must interpret from long-dead documents. If the meaning of the word “right” somehow changes into “wrong,” the Framers’ notes will be affected as much as the Bill of Rights. I am not advocating wholesale revision and abuse of the language of the Constitution to suit my political ideology, as favorable as I think that might be. I simply don’t think that the Framers’ intent is such a wonderful criterion for Constitutional judgment as their own texts are subject to changes in interpretation. It’s nice to know what James Madison had to say, but ultimately we are on our own. Frankly, I don’t know where this discussion is going nor what it’s function is right now. So far not one anti-choice debater has weighed in and attempted to resolve this seeming contradiction, and I don’t suspect any will, either. I still don’t believe that there is anything “misguided” about asking **Sua’s** question, which was the original source of our disagreement, and so far your arguments have not exactly changed my mind. MR ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/26 "2001-08-20T18:56:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > I never claimed that the Census Bureau dismissed fetus counting on ideological reasons. > [@](#): > > I am not sure how you have constructed this from the passage you quoted. I have no intention of divining the historical motivations of the Census Bureau. I’m sorry, I thought that’s what you meant. If not, then for what reason do you think they have never been counted? (Not just by the beurocrats at the Census Bureau, by those who created the government and authorized the census). Practical considerations? What else? > [@](#): > > This issue is in the realm purely hypothetical debate, and I am obviously trying to pin you down to admitting some kind of contradiction between your beliefs on abortion and your views on the nature of the census. This was quite likely the point of the OP as well. To which I have responded many times that the census count does not depend on human status. You disagree. Fine, the world goes on. But please do not pretend that I have not addressed the issue. > [@](#): > > The OP is only **one sentence long**. It is not the presentation of an argument, or a spefic demarcation of discussion. It merely invites comment. Hence the first sentence in each of your cases is hardly irrelevant to such an openended OP. Even if it were, why should you feel so constrained by the OP that you would be unwilling to consider all aspects of this issue? The OP, combined with the title, suggested that the issue of whether fetuses should be counted in the census was dependent on how human pro-lifers think they are. Do you dispute that this implication exists? My point was to dispute this premise. > [@](#): > > And why. Again, I’ve answered why. That you dislike the answer is not an excuse to pretend that no answer has been given. > [@](#): > > The homeless are so invisible that urban dwellers pretend they don’t exist when they walk by. Their lives are utterly dependent on the vigor of urban social programs and the scraps thrown to them by strangers. Their voices are mute on Election Day, and they have no representatives in the City Council. They are neither visible nor independent. > > So the only category we have so far is that they are not “inside another person.” How is this criterion remotely relevant to a census count? How is there an intrinsic connection between this category and relevance to the census? I’m sorry, but I think this is ridiculous past the point of arguing. I think if you showed people a fetus a homeless person and a regular person and said “which does not belong?” 99.999999999% would say the fetus. You might personally be the one exception. > [@](#): > > There is a difference between arguing what the word “is” means and in making meaningful sense out of an **artificially** monumental document. The Framers are quite dead, and no longer have any say or share in the state of our republic. While their intent is often extremely useful in charting the legal course of this country, as it were, I don’t believe that there is any “controlling legal authority” to be slaves to _their_ own words, which we likewise must interpret from long-dead documents. If the meaning of the word “right” somehow changes into “wrong,” the Framers’ notes will be affected as much as the Bill of Rights. I don’t know what you mean with this. > [@](#): > > I still don’t believe that there is anything “misguided” about asking **Sua’s** question, which was the original source of our disagreement, and so far your arguments have not exactly changed my mind. I can’t believe it! And I thought this would be the time… ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/27 "2001-08-20T19:38:47Z")
> [@](#): > > If not, then for what reason do you think they have never been counted? (Not just by the beurocrats at the Census Bureau, by those who created the government and authorized the census). Practical considerations? What else? I don’t know what those who created the government and those who authorized the census were thinking. Perhaps the personhood of the fetus was not relevant to _their_ kind of social planning. Perhaps Back In The Day they lacked the means to make an accurate fetus count. Perhaps it did not even occur to them. I have no idea. > [@](#): > > To which I have responded many times that the census count does not depend on human status. You disagree. Fine, the world goes on. But please do not pretend that I have not addressed the issue. I never said that you have not addressed the issue. If the census does not depend on human status, then what exactly _does_ it dependend on? If I am not mistaken you asserted before that some degree of relevance and utility are the chief criteria for inclusion. Am I correct in inferring this from your arguments? > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but I think this is ridiculous past the point of arguing. I think if you showed people a fetus a homeless person and a regular person and said “which does not belong?” 99.999999999% would say the fetus. You might personally be the one exception. Hmm…remember this, **Izzy**? > [@](#): > > In any event, the idea that the amount of people on the side of an issue is of paramount importance is not a particularly strong one, and I don’t usually pay much attention to it. The fact that most people tend to think within staid, conditioned categories neither makes them right nor makes them useful. Now please tell me exactly how the homeless are not dependent nor invisible and _then_ perhaps I will concede that it is “ridiculous past the point of arguing.” > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you mean with this I don’t know what you find elusive about my analysis of the framers’ intent. I will try to restate, if that will help. The Framers are dead. They don’t vote, they don’t participate in the pros and cons of this society, and ultimately they don’t give a damn. Since they drafted the documents so crucial to the United States, in order to understand our own legacy better _and_ in order to keep us focused on where we are going, their writings are useful to consult. Their writings are subject to the same kinds of vicissitudes of interpretation that the Constitution is. If language so drastically changes, as you would suggest, the writings of the framers would not somehow keep our interpretation of the Constitution on the right track, as _their_ meanings would be changed as well. Which would only _reinforce_ the kind of constitutional revisionism which you suggest. Hence although the writings are useful and often illuminating, we ought not be slaves to our current percetion of the framers’ intent. I hope that helps. > [@](#): > > I can’t believe it! And I thought this would be the time… There’s always next time. MR ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2001, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/28 "2001-08-20T20:34:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > I don’t know what those who created the government and those who authorized the census were thinking. Perhaps the personhood of the fetus was not relevant to _their_ kind of social planning. Perhaps Back In The Day they lacked the means to make an accurate fetus count. Perhaps it did not even occur to them. I have no idea. OK, so it sounds like you agree that originally they were not counted for relevance and practicality reasons. On what basis do you then declare that relevance and practicality should no longer be acceptable guidelines? > [@](#): > > If the census does not depend on human status, then what exactly _does_ it dependend on? If I am not mistaken you asserted before that some degree of relevance and utility are the chief criteria for inclusion. Am I correct in inferring this from your arguments? Yes, you are. > [@](#): > > Hmm…remember this, **Izzy**? Umm, er, what? I mean, I was just kidding when I said - But seriously, the “fact that most people tend to think within staid, conditioned categories” may not make them right, but it surely makes them useful. It is frequently wiser as a practical matter to group things along lines that people will recognize, rather then make new categories based on your own personal thought process. > [@](#): > > If language so drastically changes, as you would suggest, the writings of the framers would not somehow keep our interpretation of the Constitution on the right track, as _their_ meanings would be changed as well. Which would only _reinforce_ the kind of constitutional revisionism which you suggest. Yes, but if we know what the meaning was to them we don’t have to ignore it. > [@](#): > > There’s always next time. Yeah, but that’s what I thought _last_ time. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647/29 "2001-08-21T16:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > OK, so it sounds like you agree that originally they were not counted for relevance and practicality reasons. On what basis do you then declare that relevance and practicality should no longer be acceptable guidelines? I said that relevance and practicality _might_ have been criteria in the past, and I believe that they should still be guidelines. > [@](#): > > But seriously, the “fact that most people tend to think within staid, conditioned categories” may not make them right, but it surely makes them useful. It is frequently wiser as a practical matter to group things along lines that people will recognize, rather then make new categories based on your own personal thought process. Indeed that may be true, but it does not refute the logical validity of different categories. Often finding new ones is crucial for the broadening of our understanding of many issues. To this end, considering the homeless as fetuses is fairly instructive even. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## If language so drastically changes, as you would suggest, the writings of the framers would not somehow keep our interpretation of the Constitution on the right track, as their meanings would be changed as well. Which would only reinforce the kind of constitutional revisionism which you suggest. > > Yes, but if we know what the meaning was to them we don’t have to ignore it. And my problem is that the writings of the framers are just as obscure and subject to the vagaries of interpretation as the Constitution itself is. Hence while their writings are often very helpful, they nevertheless give us no greater rational assurance of interpreting the Constitution correctly, at least according to them. MR [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fetuses-and-embryos-have-been-counted-in-the-census/76647.md?page=1)