Abortion, Science, and Semantics

[BoosterBronze]

I had a heated agrument with someone on another board that eventually led to me leaving that board. It came from a discussion tangentally about abortion, where I defended the use of the term 'child.'

Is the use of the word "child" in refrence to abortion intrinsically manipulative?

I would argue that it is not. Using 'child' in refrence to a fetus is common. A woman is 'with child.' We refer to an 'unborn child.' Fathers are encouraged in parenting classes to 'talk to the child' through the mothers stomach. We say 'the child kicked.' None of these uses of the word child is usually described as emotionally manipulative.

My point is that the word 'child' is not a word that is only used when trying to bring an emotional argument against abortion.

My opponent in the discussion argued that it is intrinsically manipulative, because it is unscientific. His stance is that only the word 'fetus' should be used when discussing abortion.

I have no objection to the word 'fetus' being used interchangably with 'child' in a discussion of abortion, since medical science does and should play a large role in any such discussion, but, since 'child' is a freely used term to discribe the fetus in many other contexts, I see no reason it is particuarly unsuitable for use in the context of abortion.

His argument was that whether there is a moment that a concieved human being is granted or denied the 'right to life' is 100% a scientific decision, therefore any non-scientific terminology should be disallowed.

I argued that a 'right to life' before or after birth, and whether a culture grants or denies that right, is not a scientific concept. I've never seen any empirical evidence in any journal proving or disproving a human 'right' or any sort. Because whether or not we have a 'right' is not itself a 100% scientifically verifiable fact, I saw no reason to make scientific terms the only acceptable language when discussing abortion (or perhaps any right for that matter).

From here it degenerated into me being called a fundamentalist and I was accused of arguing against evolution. I continued to argue that if he wanted to disallow a word in one context that is acceptable in other contexts, the burden of proof should be on him. I also pointed out I had made no religious claims of any sort. For my efforts I was repeatedly insulted, accused of denying all science, and I eventually left the board in frustration.

As an atheist, pro-choice, science teacher, I found that debate frustrating to no end. I find vague claims that 'Science is pro-choice!" as empty as "God hates babykillers."

I've lurked on your boards here for sometime, and you seem a thoughtful intelligent bunch. I have no intention of restarting that old debate at the old boards, but I would appreciate anyones thoughts or input on this issue.

[Isolder74]

I think that it stems from the idea that a child is someone and a fetus is just a thing. I'm not sure what else to tell you about that.

[Khaat]

Is the use of the word "child" in refrence to abortion intrinsically manipulative?

Yes, it is.

"Child" is not a neutral term, it is used to trigger and engender emotional connection to a little version of yourself, triggering caregiving/nurturing behavior. Look at your own examples: building an emotional bond with the baby-yet-to-come.

My point is that the word 'child' is not a word that is only used when trying to bring an emotional argument against abortion.

True, it is used elsewhere, but to the same effect: engendering emotional response.

[Samuel]

My point is that the word 'child' is not a word that is only used when trying to bring an emotional argument against abortion.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... otion.html

I argued that a 'right to life' before or after birth, and whether a culture grants or denies that right, is not a scientific concept.

When cells become a person is.