Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: yes

Or it indicates something primitive or original, but not other than human. There’s room in the definition for either. You may need a more precise wordYour argument taken to its natural conclusion would mean that we should never use any word which has multiple meanings, which is plainly contrary to how we actually use language. Having multiple meanings does not make a word meaningless. We regularly infer intended meaning from context in our everyday interactions, and there's no self-evident reason this basic cognitive reasoning can't be used in this instance too. As stated, though, I don't particularly care if you find any of the terms I suggested to be suitable; it's immaterial.There is no reason to think this is a valid position.Are you really so disingenuous as to suppose I hold this view without any rationale? The evident variability of language in its use and interpretation between persons, over time, and across space suggests to me that ascription cannot possibly be an objective process. If it were then we should suspect universality, consistency, and a relative absence of semantic confusion. Moreover, the very meaning of the word "ascription" is the assigning of a quality or characteristic to some thing which means that the quality in question is not innate to what it is being attached to (otherwise we would not attach it, we would observe it). There is no externalist account, to my knowledge, which explains how something which is a human construction (language) can possibly be wholly non-subjective. Regardless, this is (again) immaterial to my original objection or my position on the immediate issue of legalized abortion. I agree, that is the issue. What you call the semantic dispute is the identification of what that “something” actually is. Rather than an argument about the magic of labels, the identification of what a thing is cannot be disregarded as irrelevant to the issue at hand. How we treat a thing hinges on what it is.How we treat a thing does depend upon what that thing is, but what we call that thing does not change what it is. If I think apples are good and veal is bad, it is not sensible that I would change how I treat what I formerly called an apple differently just because we start calling it veal instead. It hasn't changed and taken on the qualities of veal. What originally caused me to view it as good - nice taste - stays the same about it. An apple by any other name is still an apple. This is an argument I have already made at greater length, and I don't see that you've actually addressed that rationale except to assert an opposite conclusion.I find your philosophy questionable, therefore I find the expression thereof questionable as well. As a value nihilist I find it somewhat hypocritical that you continue to breath. But I know this doesn’t matter to you either.It does not seem to necessarily follow that viewing something as questionable merits treating its expression as questionable too. Nevertheless, if you are consistent in this view then you should find the expression of any view that differs from yours questionable. That makes your participation on a debate forum at least as confusing as my continuing to breath. Also, your belief that my continued existence is inconsistent with my philosophy is based on the premise that value is necessary to life. But this a premise from your philosophy, not mine, so my continued existence is only inconsistent with your beliefs and poses no contradiction to my own.The kind of certainty you demand is unreasonable to expect. I can’t truly say with certainty that my water will work when I turn on the faucet, that doesn’t mean I should forego a shower. Even though I can’t predict the working of the faucet with certainty, I know it will work. I would argue that it will work for all kinds of reasons. Pointing out that I can’t know for certain would be almost irrelevant.You have misconstrued me. Not only did I never say it was reasonable to expect certainty, I think the opposite is likely given my belief that certainty is almost always impossible. The implications I drew from this, and which you completely neglected to address, pertained directly to how I engage others in discussion of our respective ideas. I do not feel compelled to repeat myself as you may simply read what I have already written.