[Damorian]

There is a common theme among people who argue over abortion; they choose particular words that are either unscientific or misleading, in a disingenuous way, to promote their side as being more rational. My initial assumption is that you were doing this, and you may still be, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I feel it is very important that when we discuss abortion, we do so in a way that is scientific, rational, and consistent.

Your choice of words is particularly egregious, in my opinion. Killing is not the same as homicide. Human is not the same as person. A fetus is not a clump of cells, or a baby.

A "human being" is just a human (a common usage scientific term), and human is just a species of animal. So yes, a "human fetus" is a "human being". "Person" is a legal/philosophical term, not necessarily a scientific one. "Killing" simply refers to ending the life of a living thing. "Homicide" (the mention of which you removed?) is a legal term for killing a person. To drive this point home further, we have concepts for non-human persons, and non-person humans. They aren't interchangeable in all contexts.

The scientific reality and proper usage of the English language is abortion is killing humans (human fetuses). This is not up for debate. The debate is whether these humans are "persons", which entitles them to rights, or if they are not, if they deserve rights in some other capacity (e.g. my dog isn't a person but has rights).

Again, when people say "it's not killing" or "it's not a human", or tangentially, "it's a clump of cells" or "it's a baby" they are factually wrong and are deliberately misusing those words in an attempt to strengthen their argument, when in reality it makes them look either dishonest or ignorant.

To me, your posts are either dishonest, or ignorant. That was my entire point.

[Supermancho]

> The scientific reality and proper usage of the English language is abortion is killing humans (human fetuses). This is not up for debate.

Killing <animal> and killing <animal> fetus is not a an equivalence in animal medicine.

https://www.merckvetmanual.com/reproductive-system/abortion-...

I do not subscribe to your belief that there is no debate, with that assertion.

[Damorian]

To kill simply means to put a living thing to death. A fetus (human or otherwise) is a living thing. I don't know what the purpose of your link was, or how it has anything to do with the misuse of words above. Unless you think I'm implying that all forms of killing are the same, which obviously I'm not. That being said "killing <animal> fetus" is merely a subset of "killing <animal>" by basic logic. Were you implying otherwise by citing that link?

[Fumtumi]

"Foeticide (or feticide) is the act of killing a fetus, or causing an abortion."

Abortion stops a pregnancy and a pregnancy is the production of a human life.

You are also not killing sperm by using a tissue, neither do you kill an egg.

You also don't kill an embryo as those things are not alive.

Just because a biological mechanism started doing what it is programmed to do, doesn't make it alive.

Would you argue that a virus is alive?

When do you draw your line of a biological machine becoming alive?

[Supermancho]

> That being said "killing <animal> fetus" is merely a subset of "killing <animal>" by basic logic.

No, that is not logical. Killing a caterpillar is not killing a butterfly. Known forms of life are not absolute in classification. You have decided to classify a fetus as a subset and others do not. Good luck with whatever.

[Damorian]

They're still the same animal though (e.g. a butterfly caterpillar vs a moth caterpillar). The only distinction, which is specific to this case, is that the words caterpillar and butterfly imply a stage of development where the word human does not, making it a poor analogy. I just want people to stop trying to change the definition of words for the sake of perception.

[lostmsu]

You insistence on using scientific terms is misplaced in this case, as definitions are imprecise. This is not axiomatic geometry we are talking about.

For example, by some definition of species, many people with Down Syndrome do not belong to homo sapiens or any species really, due to inability to reproduce.

The closest definition you seek is DNA matching arguably is not favorable either because the syndrome causes severe DNA structure difference.

[Damorian]

Forgive me for thinking "kill" and "human" are grade school vocab words with clear definitions. I really don't feel like I'm being too pedantic here (maybe a little, but for good reason). I think the biased and incorrect way people speak when discussing abortion is ridiculous and isn't conducive to healthy conversation. If there were pro-lifers in this thread talking about a genocide two orders of magnitude bigger than the holocaust I'd be talking them down too.

[lostmsu]

> To me, your posts are either dishonest, or ignorant.

> incorrect way people speak

You bubble about scientific definition, and call people. And yet pose no real argument.

[orwin]

A human foetus w/o personality or any human trait, or a person that have a life to live and don't want to forcibly stay attached to that violonist for 9 months, i think i'm pretty okay with killing the foetus and everyone should be too.