Abortion opponents should be sued

Thank you, buckIPDA, for participating in this Debate.Regarding the definitions that Con chose:1. The link supplied for "baby" includes all of these nouns:a. baby, babe, infant (a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk) "the baby began to cry again"; "she held the baby in her arms"; "it sounds simple, but when you have your own baby it is all so different"b. baby (the youngest member of a group (not necessarily young)) "the baby of the family"; "the baby of the Supreme Court"c. child, baby (an immature childish person) "he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived"; "stop being a baby!"d. baby (an unborn child; a human fetus) "I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"e. baby (a very young mammal) "baby rabbits"f. baby (a project of personal concern to someone) "this project is his baby"Note that the one that Con picked is fourth on that list. Now please see this link:htt.....ww.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htmFor most dictionaries, all it takes for a word to be added is "widespread use". The use does not have to be "correct" or "proper":htt.....ww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain't(Interestingly, "ain't" is not in the dictionary that Con chose.)If you put this into a Google search box (where the brackets represent the boundaries of the box): [ "ain't" "is not a word" ] ,you will see "About 1,690,000 million results", the second of which, on that search-results page, states "I tend to think that 'ain't' is not a word because it's not the proper thing to say." I personally experienced English teachers in school agreeing with that statement; I will assume that many if not most readers of this Debate will have experienced something similar.Now, if "ain't" is not a word, but still is in various dictionaries because it is widely used, then the inclusion of Con's definition of "baby" makes perfect sense; it is widely used that way --especially by abortion opponents-- regardless of whether or not it is proper to use it that way.Meanwhile, for unborn mammals of every species, not just humans, the most-proper word is "fetus" --see any of a long long list of scientific papers, the authors of which are required to use the English language properly, not improperly.I therefore submit that Con's use of the dictionary, to support the mis-use of the word "baby" when talking about unborn humans, is worthless. It simply proves how widespread is this bit of improper language, much like "ain't".2. The link supplied for "child" merely specifies "at any age", and does not mention unborn humans. Also, it is normal for the "age" of a child to be computed from the time of birth, not the time of conception. We never talk about "negative ages" for children!Meanwhile, we do talk about the age of a fetus, from the time of conception. So, even if Con had provided a better dictionary link between "child" and unborn humans, I can still argue that it is only in the dictionary because of widespread use, not because it is proper to use "child" that way.Try this Google search: [ "propaganda terms" "in the dictionary" ]. "Baby" and "child" and "ain't" are far from the only mis-used words that have been added to dictionaries over the years.Con expressed willingness to accept my "loose" definition of "propaganda" as "a distortion and/or mis-use of the language". Well, as shown by all those scientific papers, for most of a pregnancy the proper word for an unborn mammal, including a human, is "fetus" (in the very early stages some other words apply for short time-periods, such as "zygote", "blastocyst", and "embryo"). Thus it logically follows that to not use the proper word, and call an unborn human a "baby" or "child", is a mis-use of the language, or "propaganda".3. and 4. I don't have any issues with the other definitions that Con provided.Regarding the "Burden of Proof" list provided by Con:1. I need not prove that all abortion opponents deserve to be sued, in "class-action" fashion, for causing unnecessary emotional suffering. It is generically true that most of them mis-use the words "baby" and "child" as previously described, as evidenced by many many anti-abortion statements made across the decades. Those are my specific targets in this Debate. It is possible (and possibly even probable) that all abortion opponents will qualify as members of the set who mis-use the words "baby" and "child". But if some few don't, that's perfectly fine with me.2. I need not prove or disprove that a fetus is anything other than what it is. This Debate is about the mis-use of the language, and the consequences thereof.3. See above, for the evidence of propaganda.4. Disproving any of the above does not release Con from the fifth and most important BOP item, which Con conveniently didn't specify:5. Con needs to show that calling an unborn human a "baby" or "child" does not lead to unnecessary emotional suffering when a miscarriage occurs.Meanwhile, the evidence clearly shows that it does --even it is was truly proper to call an unborn human a "baby". The rationale is quite simple: The phrase, "I am going to have a baby" has, built into it, the implication that there is a 100 percent chance of success. And all reinforcements of the notion, that the unborn human is a "baby", similarly imply a 100 percent chance of success.Yet it remains true that about 15 percent of established pregnancies naturally miscarry --the Truth is that each is a "baby under construction", with Murphy's Law applicable. In various other social interactions, to imply that something is guaranteed, when actually it isn't, is to act a bit like a "con artist".Con artists generally go to jail when caught, but then their crime of building false hopes and expectations is generally associated with a vastly higher investment-failure rate than 15%. So, I think a lawsuit is more appropriate, for abortion opponents, to, if nothing else, get them to stop raising false hopes and expectations, to right that wrong.