(Sorry about the titles. I just replied about
Sarah Palin in the "Honest Terminology" thread,
and in the Sarah Palin thread, I'm talking about
honest terminology.)
William T Goodall wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2008, at 04:54, David Hobby wrote:
...
>> William--
>>
>> I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll.
>>
>> For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the
>> issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has
>> to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age
>> and invest the resources elsewhere.
>
> A fetus isn't a child. That's why there's a different word for it.
>
>> (To use honest
>> terminology.)
>
> You're the one trying to use dishonest terminology.
...
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.
Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious
zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect.
Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure
temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water
is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature
scale, just as "birth" is an arbitrary place to start counting
a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's
only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at
conception (or the start of cell division).
---David
"common sense" and "abortion", together in one sentence, Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
