Abortion opponents should be sued

This Debate will focus on the claim, made by abortion opponents, that an unborn human can be called a "baby" or a "child". I will endeavor to show that that claim is propaganda at best, and an outright lie at worst, and causes severe emotional suffering whenever a natural miscarriage occurs. That is, people who swallow the propaganda/lie do suffer emotionally when a miscarriage occurs. But since that suffering could be significantly reduced, and possibly even prevented, if only the Truth had not been covered up by lying/propagandizing abortion opponents, it logically follows that abortion opponents should be sued, for causing that emotional suffering, when a miscarriage occurs.My opponent, who will be "Con" in this Debate, must show (1) that it is not a lie or propaganda to claim that an unborn human is a "baby" or a "child"; (2) and that those claims do not lead to emotional suffering when a miscarriage occurs.To Begin:Propaganda is a distortion and/or mis-use of the language. To call an unborn human a "baby" or a "child" is to distort the truth. In actual fact a baby or a child is able to survive without an umbilical connection to another human body. In the womb, the Truth of the matter is that the unborn human is a "baby under construction" or a "child under construction". It is not the finished product, and will not be the finished product until a successful birth occurs.Meanwhile, the construction process is very complex, and is subject to Murphy's Law, "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." Therefore, about 1/6 of the time, this leads to a miscarriage, premature natural termination of a pregnancy. This first link (replace some dots with ordinary web-address characters) includes "late menstruations" as miscarriages, so the percentage is rather higher:htt.../miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/qt/miscarriage-rates.htmhtt.....ww.centerforhumanreprod.com/miscarriages.htmlThe typical miscarriage rate relates to obviously-established pregnancies.Now consider two women who become pregnant about the same time. One of them is told by abortion opponents that she has a baby, and to rejoice. The other is told by pro-choicers that she has a baby-under-construction, and she is told that the construction process might fail, so she should mentally prepare herself to deal with that possibility (as in "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.").If both women experience miscarriages at about the same time, what will each woman think? Will the woman who was told to be prepared for the possibility experience as much emotional suffering as the one who was told to rejoice? So far as I know, no studies have been done about this particular scenario. Logically, however, because it is generally known that being mentally prepared for something is better than being unprepared for it, the prepared woman should suffer less, in this scenario.The difference in emotional suffering, the excess suffering experienced by the woman who was not told the Truth, is what was caused by the abortion opponents who failed to tell her the truth.Litigation-happy as lawyers in the U.S.A. are, these days, it seems like an open-and-shut-case, that abortion opponents (as a "class", generically including many religious figures, politicians, opinion columnists, etc.; by their records do they identify themselves as members of that class) could/should be sued for causing unnecessary emotional suffering by spouting lies and propaganda, with the plaintiffs being the class of millions of women who had miscarriages and unnecessary emotional suffering --and sued successfully, too!