From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Child (was: Walking down to the student center last night)
Summary: a fetus is a child
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:46:07 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

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. 
However, to argue that it is wrong, stupid, ridiculous, or disingenuous
to call a fetus a child when many if not most dictionaries do include
the unborn in their definition, just because you can find some that do
not, is itself ridiculous.  And I was certainly correct in my first
point: I've found nothing about a soul in the definition of "child" in
any dictionary.

...
>> that some dictionaries (especially
>> abridged ones) don't explicitly include the words "unborn" or "fetus" in
>> the definition of "child" (although most do).  However those that don't,
>> like "American Heritage Dictionary", don't exclude the unborn in their
>> definition, i.e. that don't say "born offspring", they just say
>> "offspring".  Are you going to tell me that the fetus isn't an offspring
>> too?
>
>Actually, yes, since it hasn't "sprung off" yet.

Staying with this simple-minded analysis for the moment, from the male's
perspective it has. :-)

When I wrote the above, I had in mind the Funk & Wagnalls' (1983)
Dictionary, which used "offspring" in the definition of "child" and defined
"offspring" as:

	offspring n. 1 The progeny or issue of a person, animal, or
		       plant; descendant.  2. Any result or product.

That's pretty inclusive.  It certainly doesn't exclude the as yet unborn.

>And some dictionaries
>don't mention offspring, and explicitly give birth as the beginning point.
>   _Dictionary of Contempory American Usage_
>
>       infant; child; baby.  An *infant*, in the general usage of the
>   word, is a *child* during the earliest period of its life when it is
>   still being carried about, "a babe in arms."  *Infant* and *baby* in
>   current American usages are synonymous, though *baby* is the everyday
>   word and *infant* would seem formal or a little archaic.  A *child*
>   is a baby or an infant but in general use it applies to persons below
>   the age of puberty and since *baby* is generally used of the very
>   young, a *child* commonly designates someone anywhere between weaning
>   and puberty.  In law an *infant* is a minor, a person under twenty-
>   one, and a *child* is any descendant, regardless of age.  *Baby* is
>   not recognized in the law as designating a category.

The above dictionary is obviously is not intended to give complete
definitions of words, as it leaves off a number of the meanings and
usages of "child" quite outside any consideration of the unborn, e.g. "a
child of nature" or "a child of the Viet Nam War".  In any case, I don't
see in the definition above where birth is explicitly given as the
beginning point for any of those words.

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

Sure, please do.  I've found Random House and World Book and have heard
rumor of others.  Suppose you find two or three others.  Does that
prove "child" is not and can not properly be used to refer to the unborn? 
Really?  I think I've shown these dictionaries are simply incomplete.

>> Please keep in mind that this didn't start with me making a big point of
>> the fact that the fetus is a child.  It started with other people claiming
>> the the fetus isn't a child and that it was ridiculous to say otherwise.
>> That is corruption of the language for political purposes.
>
>Actually, calling a fetus a child is a corruption of language for political
>purposes.

Some people may do that for political purposes (not me), but it is not a
corruption of English, but proper usage.

...
>> 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.

>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.

>    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.  Whether or not that is murder is what the
abortion (not this) debate is about.

...[the following point moved from its orginal position to make my
response more coherent.]
>(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.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity