First, I think that my point for this thread still stands. As I've engaged with individuals here people focus on the mother. Fine. However there is seemingly a complete disregard for the human life growing in the womb. All the arguments used, out of necessity do not take into consideration the fetus. Even saying "it's a clump of cells" is used to take the view off of the life and onto the mother.Sure. With no equivocation from me, the sanitization of language does happen in the abortion debate. It's justified to the extent that the language is medically-correct, but it's easy to dehumanize the fetus, too.
The only thing I will say is that the reverse also happens in this debate. People call a 1 day old fetus a baby or a child, to over-humanize a stage of development in which fully 25% of fetuses never survive to grow a heart or a brain, or eyes or limbs. Both sides use language strategically.
As I've said, I value your input here in the forums because it's almost always thoughtful. This thread just seemed atypical - but I wont belabor the point; its water under the bridge. I hope I answered your OP productively. Let me know if you think there still is something that wasn't addressed.
Hence why my opening paragraph talked about someone who doesn't exist.
This is different than the pro-life arguments because they take into account the mother needs to be protected/cared for as well. For example, Jeff Durban from Apologia Church is the most extreme in terms of being pro-life, however he and his church care for the mothers who decide not to get an abortion.
It also made me think of something else. I'm willing to say that there are instances where an abortion is 100% justifiable. Where the mom will die and the baby will die either way unless an abortion happens. So I'm willing to move in a reasonable direction, and my worldview allows for that.
Can that be said of those who are pro-choice. Are there instances where a mother does not have the right to choose to have an abortion? Is there even a willingness to consider that? Does a pro-choice position have a worldview that excludes that as an option? I'm not asking for an answer, just something to think about.
Second, yes both sides can use language strategically, which means that my point is correct. It does matter what we call the human life* growing in the womb. (*Scientifically it's got human DNA and it's living, hence "human life".)
Third, regarding what you said first, "both sides use language"... but strategically or correctly (or both)? How do we know which one is correct? It's easy to say we can go to the doctors. That's an option. However it's also an option to ask the mothers. A mom who looses a child, however developed it may be, does feel a loss and tends to treat it as though they've lost a child rather than a lump of cells.
So, I've asked a lot of questions, but here's a key one. Is the definition of what is growing in the mother purely a scientific one or also a metaphysical one? I would say that trying to figure out what is a "baby" is a little more metaphysical than just purely scientific, which means we cannot 100% rely on what doctors say (though they're a good guide).
I would also argue that our society is not equipped to define what a baby is, as we cannot even define what a man or woman is, as evidenced by the documentary "What Is A Woman?"
Just my thoughts.