Good.
Oh and “unborn” babies is a weird term for fetus that is a politically loaded term… and is as much logical sense as calling the living “undead” or “unburied”
Oh and “unborn” babies is a weird term for fetus that is a politically loaded term… and is as much logical sense as calling the living “undead” or “unburied”
Using the divisive terminology is what’s divisive, not the comment complaining about the divisive language
But, since we're here, I think it's loaded because it implies the fetus will be born. It kind of gives the impressions that a fetus is equivalent to a baby given enough time, hence they are unborn babies. I think that language is inherently anti-choice. It seems nitpicky but these subtle collective consciousness changes result in culture shifts over time.
Anti-abortion advocacy is rather new, and old-timey at the same time. The arguments more or less haven't changed since the 50s. For the majority of the time since Roe nobody really cared - the American right shifted to other divisive politics. In the past 10 years they shifted back. Not sure why, maybe they felt as a party it was a strategic entry point into the topic of 14th amendment privacy as a whole. Certainly, that seems plausible when individuals such as Justice Thomas have alluded to taking aim at other protections of that nature such as Loving and Obergefell.
And a lot of cultures celebrate like the 100th day of life with some ceremony because so many babies died before that in antiquity. Humanizing babies, and I mean actual babies, is also modern. Heck, until recently people could be treated as property so even humanizing humans was a recent turn of events.
Shall we judge things by antiquity standards, is that really smart?