From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Child (was: Walking down to the student center last night)
Summary: The fetus is a child by definition.
Keywords: child, fetus, baby, abortion, dictionary
Date: 9 Oct 92 05:25:17 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

[I expanded the number of groups because I'm not going to answer all the
responses to my point below.  However, I have directed followups out of
alt.rush-limbaugh.]

In article <1992Oct3.112529.1@mdcbbs.com> ivler@mdcbbs.com
(J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com) writes:
>In article <1060@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>> You have neglected son or daughter, which my dictionaries have as a second
>> definition a male or female descendant, which I don't think excludes the
>> unborn.  In any case, the definition your dictionary gives is obviously
>> incomplete if you interpret it to exclude the unborn.  Have you never heard
>> the phrase, "she is with child"?  It makes no sense unless "child"
>> includes the unborn.
>
>She "is with child"
>She "has a bun in the oven"
>She "is making a baby"
>
>Now, is it a child, a sweet roll or a fetus?

Ok, perhaps "with child" was a poor choice, but there are plenty of
others. We say, "a child was conceived."  We say, "She carried her
child to term." We ask, "Whose child is it?" and answer, "It is his
child she is carrying." We say, "He fathered a child."  Or how about
Matthew 1, 18-20: ". . . Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they
lived together, she was found with child . . . the angel of the Lord
appeared in a dream and said to him: 'Joseph, son of David, . . . It is
by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived this child.'"*  This is not
an exhaustive list.  These are not idioms or euphemisms.  They are
examples of proper usage by the dictionary definition.  Moreover, they
are common usage.  So when I say that any dictionary is incomplete that
doesn't include the unborn in the definition of child, I am correct.

Look, this was in response to someone who posted what was supposedly the
definition of "child" from an "American Heritage Dictionary".  Although I
have several dictionaries, I didn't think I had that particular one at
home.  I now believe that what he was quoting to me was in fact from a
computer, or some other severely abridged version of that dictionary.  It
turns out my daughter has an "American Heritage Dictionary, Second College
Edition", 1991:

	child n, . . . 2a. An unborn infant: fetus. . . .

Or how about Merriam Webster:

	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.

Or from Collins World:

	child  n. 1. an infant; a baby  2. an unborn offspring . . .
	Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, 1977

Or from Simon and Schuster:

	child  n. 1. an infant; baby  2. an unborn offspring . . .
	- Websters NewWorld Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1984

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it
be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they
have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught
to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of
their lives."
	- Tolstoy

Think about that.  This point is not debatable: a fetus is a child.  By
any of the usual standards of proof for any other definition, I have
proven my point.  The dictionaries I've used were not selected because
they agree with me, but merely the first ones I've checked.  They aren't
odd or unusual dictionaries, but standard, widely accepted as
authoritative, dictionaries.  I am lead to believe that the two widely
accepted and used dictionaries in the U.S. are American Heritage and
Merriam Webster.  Both of these agree on the definition of child.

Yes, there are dictionaries that don't include the unborn in their
definition of "child", even implicitly.  In the last few days of
checking every dictionary I can get my hands on (I didn't know there
were so many different ones), I have run across two (and only two)
dictionaries, not severely abridged, that were like that: "Random House
Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged", 1987,
and the "World Book Dictionary".  To argue that because you can find
dictionaries that don't include a definition, in spite of the fact that
most dictionaries do, that a word doesn't mean that and that it is
ridiculous or stupid to argue otherwise, as has been done here, is
bizarre.  I doubt this debate would go on like this if abortion wasn't
involved.

* I do not quote the bible because I am a Christian (I am not), but because
it is the most common book in the English language and was at one time
considered the very standard of good English.  And yes, I know it was not
originally written in English and there is more than one version of the
bible in print . . . so what?

>Steven, you have to do better than using cliches to prove your point. Stop
>being sophmoric and start to address the issues in a scientific (read
>detached) manner.

I'm not the one who started this, nor the one who is arguing word
definitions from abridged dictionaries.  And honestly, the only point
I was making is about the meaning of the word "child".  I'm not trying to
make any point about abortion in so doing, although I have asked why
this (false) distinction is so important.

As you may have noted, I try to avoid arguing about abortion directly. 
I do this because a) it seems to be futile and b) except for
talk.abortion -- which my site doesn't get -- these aren't the proper
groups for such a discussion.  I will however, sometimes followup on
some of the more ridiculous or obviously false statements I run across
on either side of the debate.  Or I sometimes try to stop some of the
"Tastes Great!" v. "Less Filling!" arguments that sometimes arise, like
the recent and recurring "Pro-A is true, Pro-B is false" flame-fest.

>1) is the egg a human life?

Well, since you asked, I will give my position.  But if you want to debate
this with me, you will have to take it to email.

No, at least not in the sense we are discussing.  I have never heard anyone
argue otherwise (who was serious).

>2) is the sperm a human life?

Ditto.

>3) if both of the above are no, at what point does the combination of the two 
>   of these become human life?

Conception.

>4) If the answer to #3 is upon the first split of the first cell, then the
>  next question is... 
>
>     a) is "the pill" acceptable?

Yes.

>     b) is the "morning after pill" acceptable?

No.

>     c) is the French "abortion pill" acceptable?

No.

>     d) is a IUD acceptable?

No.

>[all four of the current birth control options above can and will cause a 
> fertilized egg to be expelled from the host.]

Wrong.  The pill stops ovulation, and thus prevents the egg from becoming
fertilized.[1]

Interesting side note: the pill was originally developed by a Catholic
(a priest in fact if I remember correctly) as a fertility drug.  It is
still used for that purpose.  It works by suppressing ovulation, but
when you stop taking it, the ovaries try to make up for lost time in a
sense, and ovulate with a vengeance (so to speak), making the woman more
fertile.  This one reason why it so important not to forget to take the
pill.

>My point is quite simple... beyond abstaining from intercourse, what
>acceptable methods of birth control do you recognize? When do you feel that
>human life has begun, and that the choice to stop/remove this is no longer
>warranted?

I have no problem with the pill, spermicide, condoms, the diaphragm, the
sponge, silicone plugs [2], oral sex, anal sex, partiality,
masturbation, or in fact anything that doesn't involve killing the
fertilized egg.  What's the point?  Oh, I almost forgot: the rhythm
method, I especially approve of the rhythm method, without which neither
I nor my three brothers would be here.  :-)


I frequently get irked reading these debates because it is often said
that abortion is a religious question, and therefore an individual
matter, not a proper subject for public control or even debate.  Those
for legal abortion often say that those against are just trying to
impose their religious values on everyone else, and in fact, many
people against abortion justify their position on religious grounds. 
I'm agnostic, i.e. not religious. My opposition to abortion has nothing
to do with the notion of sin, a soul, an after-life, or God.  I don't
view pregnancy as punishment.  I have nothing against sex and I don't
think it is a sin outside of marriage.

Those who favor legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life
starts or science can't tell us when human life begins.  This statement
can only be made based on (at least) a quasi-religious belief in some
extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life.  The biological
facts are not in question (at least, not this century), and these, it
seems to me, are the only sound basis for deciding what is and isn't
human life.

I am against abortion because the development of an adult human being
is a gradual process and there is no meaningful transitions -- no
bright line -- one can use to separate the human from the non-human in
this process other than conception.*  If abortion is ok at three
months, the logical mind will wonder why not four or five months -- and
if then, why not later? -- because what of significance to being human
has changed?  Abortion in Oregon, and I understand many states, would
be legal even while the mother is in labor (please note I'm not saying
this happens often or even ever, just that it would be legal).  The
logical mind would wonder what it is about the birth process that makes
the child human and why it is not ok to kill the child after birth,
when it would have been ok just a few minutes before.  I have heard it
argued, on the NET and elsewhere in print, that "abortion" be allowed
up to two years after birth.  I see it argued that there are too many
people in the world and we therefore should do nothing to discourage
abortion.  I worry about the effect of this kind of thinking on the
children who are born and those who raise them.  Legal abortion
inevitably cheapens human life, and I think we are seeing the effects
of that, in the high murder rate, increasing child-abuse, and the
increasing talk of euthanasia on the other end of life.  I find it
highly alarming that so many people seem to take the position that it is
ok to kill unproductive members of society simply for personal or
societal convenience.

As to the rights of the mother, I am not unmindful of these, but what do
we say about the mother, or parents who neglect their infant?  It is
child abuse.  If the infant dies due to neglect, it is manslaughter or
even murder.  We have no problem saying the mother has responsibilities
after her child is born, why not before?

It is said of the pregnant woman, that it her body and she should be
able to do as she wants with it.  Ignoring the child for a moment, we
aren't shy about telling her what she can and can't do with her body in
other area's.  We tell her what drugs she can use and what she can't
and we tell her she can't sell sex (both of which I consider far worse
abuses of her rights).  Why is abortion so special?

It is said that it is her life, and the decision affects only her, so
the decision should be made by her alone.  Ignoring the child for the
moment, what about the father?  It is his child too.  It certainly
affects him.  What about grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and so
on.  Abortion affects far more than just the mother.

It is said that we have no right to force our morality on others.  I'm
not doing that, and wouldn't if I could.  And I don't think this is any
business of the federal government's either way.  I think this should
be decided by the vote, state by state.  But should a society, through
the state, "force" morality on people.  Again, we aren't shy about
forcing our morality on people in other cases where other people are
involved.  We do not hesitate to "force" our morality on Jeffrey Dalmer
or Ted Bundy, or even in the case of parents who abuse their children, 
so we aren't violating some inviolable principle to do it in the case of
abortion.

People talk about reproductive rights, and claim that any restrictions on
abortion would be a violation of these.  I would say that a pregnant
woman has already reproduced.  She already has a child, and it is too
late to talk of family planning or reproductive rights.

People bring up the case of rape and incest.  I find this irrelevant. 
Clearly, this doesn't change what abortion is, or what it is that is
being aborted.

People bring up the case of danger to the life of the mother, and ask if
abortion is ok to save the life of the mother, aren't we making a value
judgement here?  If the fetus is a human life, why would we value the
life of the mother's over his?  I see no need to make any value
judgement over the relative merits of the two lives.  It is a clear cut
case of self-defense, and I would treat it exactly as such.  Everyone has
a right (and I think a duty) to defend their life by any reasonable
means necessary, up to and including killing others, if that is
reasonably necessary, if there is no other way out.  The fetus isn't
wittingly putting the mother's life in danger, but does that change
anything?

I realize my position is extreme.  I understand that many, perhaps most
fertilized eggs end in miscarriage.  I doubt we should go to any special
effort to save these even if we could.  I have trouble getting very worked
up over the use of the IUD or in characterizing it's users and other people
guilty of killing fertilized eggs as murderers.  I could be convinced it
isn't if someone can make the proper case and answer my objections.

I don't imagine that his short article will change anyone's mind on this
issue.  But I want to point out this is not an easy issue.  Powerful
arguments can be made on both sides of it.  Neither position is
irrational or stupid.  The question of abortion deserves better, more
serious discussion than the ad hominem and condescension that has
characterized this debate so far.

Once again, I posted my position on abortion (the question of the
definition of "child" I see as a completely separate issue) because I
was asked.  I obviously can't stop people from responding, but if you
want to ask me questions or want to debate abortion with me, please take
it to email.  Use the address below.

* One could argue for birth, but what really changes there from the
point of the baby?  Only who is doing the breathing, food digestion,
and temperature regulation.  Is that what it takes to be human?  You
can talk about awareness or some other aspect of brain function, but
again is that your definition of human?  Can we simply kill anyone who
doesn't meet this criteria, such as those in a coma, or with
degenerative brain disease?  More to the point, can individuals make
this determination on their own and act on it for their own convenience?
In general, clearly not, yet that is exactly what is argued for in the
case of abortion.  We don't allow this elsewhere.  Why is abortion a
special case?


[1]  "1250 Health-Care Questions Women Ask", Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr. MD,
1985, pg 560.

[2] ibid, pg 587
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3847 sci.space:14419