From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Child (was: Walking down to the student center last night)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:20:26 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1072@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> In article <1992Oct04.183535.16658@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >In  <1061@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> >> In article <1992Oct02.042824.158278@watson.ibm.com>
> >> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >> >In  <1054@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> >> >> Look up the word "child".  You will find nothing about a soul.  A
> >> >> fetus is by definition a child.
> >> >
> >> >Depends on the dictionary.
> >>
> >> No it doesn't.
> >
> >Yes it does.
>
> I was wrong.  Since I started this, I have found some dictionaries that do
> not include the unborn in their definition of "child", even implicitly.

> And I was certainly correct in my first point: I've found nothing
> about a soul in the definition of "child" in any dictionary.

I certainly wasn't disagreeing with you about that.  :-)

> >I've got a number of (unabriged) dictionaries that agree with this; I can
> >provide references if you want.
>
> Sure, please do.

I offered rather than supplying the references since I didn't have them with
me when I wrote the above.  Since you agreed above that some dictionaries
don't include the unborn in their definition of "child", I'll simply
provide a couple of references without bothering to type in the definitions.
(I'll do so if you think it necessary.)
   Random House Dictionary of the English Language (The Unabridged Edition)
   (1966)

   The New Century Dictionary (1957)

> >> Why is this (false) distinction so important to you people?
> >
> >1.  It's not a false distinction; in common use, a fetus is not referred
> >    to as a child.
>
> In fact, I think I have shown that it is in my previous posting.

I disagree.

> >2.  The distinction is important because "child" has the connotations
> >    associated with the normal use of the word - i.e., a cute little
> >    kid running around in a playground.
>
> In other words, you won't accept American Heritage or Merriam Webster's
> definition of the word for political reasons.

Nope, I use the more accurate terms to avoid ambiguity.  If you talk about
a three-month-old fetus, we know what you're talking about.  If I talk
about a three-month-old child, we know what I'm talking about.  But if
*you* talk about a three-month-old child, you could be referring to either.

> >    You're using the word to invoke
> >    those connotations, and people's normal protective reactions, which
> >    most people feel don't apply to an early-term fetus, much less to a
> >    zygote or embryo (which is what is what's aborted in the vast
> >    majority of cases).
>
> *I* am not.  I am not using "child" to make any point about abortion.
> I have always understood "child" to include the unborn, so the word
> doesn't imply any false connotations to me.  Until this discussion, I
> didn't know anyone thought differently (honest).
>
> >    That's why, when some idiot posts CHILDREN ARE BEING MURDERED!!!
>
> Abortion does kill a child.

Abortion kills a zygote, embryo, or fetus.  You might consider them all
to be a subset of "child", but when you say that a child is killed,
most of us think of a *born* child.

> >(Note that the Supreme Court has interpreted "child" to refer
> >to an individual already born, with an existence separate from its mother.
> >They footnote Webster's Third New International Dictionary in support
> >of this proposition.  The case is Burns v Alcala.)
> >
> [the following definition from Merriam Webster's added back in]
>
>      child  n. 1a: an unborn or recently born human being:
>                 Fetus, Infant, Baby.
>
> >> That is from, "Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English
> >> Language, Unabridged", G & C Merriam Company, 1976.
> >
> >Interesting; the above SC decision was, I believe, in 1975.  Could the
> >dictionary have been updated the following year due to pressure in
> >response to this?
>
> Unlikely.  I checked the 1966 version of the same dictionary and it had the
> same definition.  I also checked Merriam Webster's Collegiate dictionary
> (an abridged version of the same dictionary) for the years 1969, 73, 74, 77,
> 79, and 91 (there are a lot of them here at work).  They all had:
>
>      Child n.  1a: an unborn or recently born person.
>
> I can only guess that either you have misrepresented (unintentionally I'm
> sure) the Supreme Court decision, or the Supreme Court is even worse at
> interpreting the dictionary than they are at interpreting the Constitution.

I obtained this second-hand, from the following post.  I don't have access
to a law library to look up the references.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
=======================================================================
# Newsgroups: talk.abortion
# Subject: Re: Wilson v Weaver
# Message-ID: <1992Mar15.223949.6048@midway.uchicago.edu>
# From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
# Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 22:39:49 GMT
# Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
# Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
# References: <1992Mar15.185910.5420@rigel.econ.uga.edu> <1992Mar15.221907.5698@mi
# Distribution: na
# Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
# Lines: 35
#
# In article <1992Mar15.221907.5698@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
# >As far as I can tell, Welch is referring to Wilson v Weaver, 499 F2d
# >155 (7th Cir 1974).  This case was vacated by the Supreme Court in
# >Trainor v Wilson, 420 US 999 (1975).  I may be missing some of the
# >legal history, because this case bounced up and down the courts for
# >a while.  But it's only legal relevance is with respect to the meaning
# >of "dependent child" (not "child") in the Social Security Act, section
# >406(a).
# >
# >Someone with more time is welcome to take this lead and do more thorough
# >research.  The case appears to be thoroughly irrelevant, and I'm not
# >going to waste exam study time on it.
#
# So I lied, I am going to waste exam study time on it.  The Supreme Court
# explicitly rejected Wilson v Weaver and said that "dependent child"
# under the Social Security Act did not include "unborn children."  At
# 420 US 575, 580-581, the Court interpreted "child" to refer to an
# individual already born, with an existence separate from its mother.
# Interestingly, for those curious about "legal" and "common" definitions,
# they footnote Webster's Third New International Dictionary in support
# of this proposition.  The case is Burns v Alcala.  Once it was decided,
# the court vacated Wilson v Weaver (as Trainor v Wilson) at 420 US 999 (1975).
# On remand, this time as Green v Stanton, 451 F Supp 567 (N D Ind 1978),
# the case was finally dismissed, five or so years after it had been brought
# in an attempt to receive an extra nine months AFDC benefits.  (Green and
# Stanton were under the same decision as Wilson v Weaver, the two cases were
# merged at the appellate level, thus my earlier confusion.)
#
# I leave to the net to decide whether the use of Wilson v Weaver is
# either simply mistaken or deceitful.
# --
# Ted Frank          + "I think Pat Buchanan sounds more like me every day."
# 1307 E 60 St, #109 + "There are different Klans, just like there are different
# U o' C Law Skool   +  fraternities in college."
# Chi, IL 60637      +                          -- David Duke
Newsgroups: talk.abortion