|
|
|
|
|
by esarbe
1479 days ago
|
|
> but it is no less polemical and ideological than the comment you are responding to. I beg to differ. I don't think that using dictionary definitions to make ones arguments can be counted as polemic (as in; to use contentious rhetoric). I might be wrong though. > I'm assuming the previous comment meant human and not child No, I actually meant 'child'. An human embryo is - obviously - human. No discussion about that. A human embryo is not a child - the definition of that is also pretty much settled, I'd say. (At least from a scientific point of view.) But maybe I didn't clearly state my case, thus the misunderstanding. The point I'm making is as follows. Embryos are not children and thus they are not persons. Just as I cannot murder my toe (it might be human, but it's not a person) I cannot murder an embryo. |
|
To suggest there is only one definition of "child" is even more incorrect than suggesting that it can't refer to an unborn person:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child