Definition of Human Being

What's an example of an argument for abortion justified by semantics? I'm just curious.

Probably the "it's not a person" so it's not homicide one.

< span class="postbody">




I gotcha, Birch.

I think some of us are getting too hung up on the "semantics" of the word "semantic" (lol)

semantics

se·man·tics-
the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

Calling a fetus a person is arguing about semantics, i.e. arguing about the meaning of the word fetus or person.

Changing the meaning of the words zygote, embryo, fetus to mean "persons" is an argument based on semantics put forth by the anti-choice side.

The Semantics of Abortion


"As is so often the case, the "conservative" side of this debate has been much more skillful in its crafting of language to convey its message. For example, their self-selected descriptions of their position, "pro-life" and "anti-abortion," convey the immediate suggestion that the opposition is "anti-life" and "pro-abortion."

As a moment's reflection should make clear, a "pro-choice" position by no means entails "anti-life" or "pro-abortion." Yet it took a few years after Roe vs. Wade for the liberals to get their semantic act together and to adopt for themselves the label of "pro-choice."

"Pro choice" is, of course, quite consistent with "pro-life," as it calls for protection of the lives of the women endangered by an untimely or medically counter-indicated pregnancy. And as we noted at the outset, the liberal "pro-choice" position encourages sex education and contraception which have together proven to be very effective means of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and hence abortions - surely a life-affirming policy.

Furthermore, no one is, strictly speaking, "pro-abortion" - that is to say, no one seriously contends that abortion is prima facie a "nice thing" to happen to a woman. Instead, the pro-choice position regards abortion as "a necessary evil." How "necessary" and how "evil"? - that moral perception varies with each individual. At one extreme end of the spectrum, a late-term abortion may be assigned the disvalue of inconvenience, like an untimely toothache. At the other extreme are those who say, flat out, that there is nothing more evil than abortion (or "child-killing" as they call it) - not the loss of the life of the mother, not the mandatory pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, not the birth of a Tay-Sachs child condemned to a very brief life of unremitting torture, not even the homicide of "child-killer" physicians who perform abortions or the "collateral" injuries to patients and staff caused by clinic bombings.

Somewhere between these extremes are the opinions of almost all the rest of us.

"Pro-Choice," consistent with the Roe decision, holds that a woman's personal beliefs, somewhere along this spectrum, should bear significantly upon the decision whether or not to continue her pregnancy - and that the law and the State should not impose that decision upon her.

The semantic over-reach of the conservatives is best exemplified the designation of the product of conception, from the moment of unicellular fertilization (the "zygote"), as a "baby." Thus abortion, during even the earliest stages of embryonic and fetal development, is routinely referred to as "baby-killing."

The absurdity of this word-play was manifested about a decade ago in a legal case in Tennessee. After a few years of failed attempts to conceive a child, a couple agreed to try in-vitro fertilization. A few hours after fertilization, six developing cell-clusters were frozen in liquid nitrogen, in anticipation of later implantation. However, soon thereafter the marriage failed. The wife consented to have the embryos discarded, but the husband sued to have them preserved "just in case" he later married an infertile woman and desired to have children. Although (as I recall) nobody asked them, a "right to life" group then stepped in as a friend of the court (more accurately, "a friend of the zygotes"). In a half-hour that I vividly remember, the case was argued on CNN's "Crossfire," wherein the anti-abortion advocate repeatedly referred to those chilled, microscopic cell-clusters as "the poor babies." "Babies?!"

The pro-life forces discovered early-on that the conjoining of "killing" and "babies" produces powerful rhetorical ammunition, which they have since put to persistent and very effective use."

I love that word!

It doesn't matter if a fetus is a person or not. No born person has the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will.

See McFall v. Shimp.