and yet you have had other definitions that do not support yours, so are you trying to say that some definitions are right and others are wrong? If that is the case then please tell me which are right and which are wrong - The medical definitions that define the medical word baby or the standard definitions that do not define the medical word baby only the informal usage. and as I responded, you want a civil debate then start by treating your opponents in a civilized manner, refrain from all the hyperbole as follows; and others will be civil back. ------------------------------- Now are you going to defend your following assertion in a civilized manner, or will you just ignore and evade. I am more than happy to be civilized to you should you return the same respect to me, if not then I will treat you as you treat others. Your assertion - "Fetus don't damage, the birth process does and pregnancy is a perfectly normal process for the female human body. And yes the right to life trumps the woman being inconvienced by pregancy, only if that life in her severly threatens her physical health or life does her right then trump that right. " My response - In medical terms, even a normal pregnancy is an extraordinary condition. Hormones may rise to 400 times their base levels. A woman's respiratory system drastically changes, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume and a 15 percent increase in blood pressure. A new organ is grown in a woman's body, the placenta, and her entire circulatory system is rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus. The fetus releases a chemical molecule called phosphocholine which is also found in the nematode worm, the purpose of this molecule is to suppress the immune system and prevent it attacking the "foreign" object. "Another role for foetal transferrin receptors on trophoblasts could be to bind maternal transferrin at the materno-foetal interface, thus frustrating maternal immunosurveillance. This is similar to a mechahism used by schistosomes in the host-parasite relation where host proteins are bound by the parasite to escape immunological recognition." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37515 "During implantation, fetally derived cells (trophoblast) invade the maternal endometrium and remodel the endometrial spiral arteries into low-resistance vessels that are unable to constrict. This invasion has three consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother's arterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient content of blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placenta becomes largely independent of control by the local maternal vasculature. Third, the placenta is able to release hormones and other substances directly into the maternal circulation. Placental hormones, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and human placental lactogen (hPL), are predicted to manipulate maternal physiology for fetal benefit. " - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8115596 It would seem that the fetus causes substantial damage throughout the pregnancy and one wonders how the hell you majored in biology if you don't know these things. Furthermore pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injury in some cases and cited as a injury in some state laws. "Nebraska, which defines serious personal injury as great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ. Nebraskas statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury. Michigans statute does the same work, defining personal injury as bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ. In those two states alone they are not saying that pregnancy is like and injury, they are stating it IS an injury. The supreme court of California also disagrees with you on whether pregnancy is an injury - People vs Cross On Appeal - (1) Can a pregnancy without medical complications that results from unlawful but nonforcible sexual conduct with a minor support a finding of great bodily injury? Holding(s): (1) Yes, it can, and here evidence of the pregnancy was sufficient to support such a finding. Issue 1: Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. This is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. In Sargent, the court found that the pregnancy itself that followed a rape, constituted a great bodily injury based on the severe intrusion into a womans body. In fact, none of the cases cited by the defendant suggested that medical complications or the use of force is required to support a finding of great bodily injury. Each of the cases instead acknowledges that a great bodily injury determination is to be made by the jury based on the facts as presented at trial in the context of the particular crime and the particular injuries suffered by the victim. Furthermore, Section 12022.7 does not make any such limitation. Therefore, the court rejects defendants argument here that a pregnancy without medical complications that results from nonforcible but unlawful intercourse can never support a finding of great bodily injury. Proof that a victims bodily injury is great, that is, significant or substantial within the meaning of section 12022.7, is commonly established by evidence of the severity of the victims physical injury, the resulting pain, or the medical care required to treat or repair the injury. Your assertion - Which has nothing to do with whether it is human, a human being or a person. My Response - Has a whole lot to do with it, as legally a fetus is not recognized as a 'person' until birth.
It is you that is changing the English language by trying to make it mean something it doesn't. Dictionaries include "colloquial" meanings. A dictionary tells you what someone means when saying something. A pregnant woman can be said to be "with child". This does not mean that the pregnant woman actually has a child inside her. Don't confuse your lack of understanding of language usage with science.
What English language word am I trying to change? The word "fetus" has been around for a long while, and even though it is not commonly used in casual conversation, it is the accurate and scientific term for the developmental stage that is involved in abortion. Did you ignore the 4 medical dictionary entries which confirmed my argument? Medical terminology for a medical procedure.
