From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:41:28 GMT


Having had account problems for the last few days, this might be a bit
stale.  Susan Garvin and I will never agree, anyway.  So, a final point
and I will leave her to her own grisly interests...

In article <448@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|In article <1992Dec9.034914.24520@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
|#In article <342@blue.cis.pitt.edu|  sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|#| In article <1992Dec8.191700.19308@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
|#| # [...]
|#| #Any choice?  About anything?  Really?  [...]
|#[...]
|#| #What is the preferred method of child-killing these days?
|#| 
|#| I don't know.  I don't know anyone who kills children.
|#
|#Never met an abortionist?  
|
|I've met many physicians who perform abortions, if that's what you're
|trying to say.  Right-to-lie people are frequently hard to communicate
|with, because they're seemingly incapable of using standard English.
|
|Neither zyogtes, nor embryoes, nor fetuses are children.  Pull out 
|all the dictionaries that you like.  It's a silly argument.

Duh.  If you don't want to use a dictionary then what do you consider
``standard English?''

At any rate, I looked ``child'' up in the Oxford English Dictionary 
[1:Vol C, pg 341] and found the following definition.  Now, I've ellided 
the unimportant parts -- I invite anybody who distrusts what I write to 
look it up for themselves.  

	Child  (...) sb.,  Pl. children ...     -- etymology [skipping]

        A.  Illustration of the plural forms    -- [skipping]

	B.  Signification  		        -- this is the start of the 
                                                -- actual definitions

            I.  With reference to state or age  -- this looks like the place

                1.  The unborn or newly born human being; foetus, 
		infant.  App. originally always used in relation to 
		the mother as the `fruit of the womb'.  

                When the application was subsequently extended the 
                primitive sense was often expressed by babe, baby, 
                infant; but `child' is still the proper term, and 
                retained in phrases, as `with child', to have a 
                child', `child birth', the verb `to child'.


Why, will wonders never cease!  Look, the very _first_ definition for 
the word child defines a child as ``an unborn or newly born human being'' 
and, to clarify, even specifies ``foetus.''  

So, why have we taken to calling the not-yet-born child a ``foetus'' 
rather than a ``child?''  Well, the reason the anti-life crowd uses the 
clinical term `foetus' (which we see is a synonym for `child') is that it 
serves to dehumanize the child when in the state of being as yet unborn.  

And so we note that an abortionist does kill children for a living. 

[1]  The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.  Complete 
text reproduced micrographically.  Volume I.  A-O.  Oxford University 
Press, 1971, Oxford, England.  {N.B. This dictionary is a two-volume
reproduction of the OED originally published in ~1938.}


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.