Badger Shame wrote:

Some people don't refer to the unborn as "babies". Others do.
Some think that human life begins at conception. Others don't.
But nobody can claim that they have medical or
legal opinion completely on their side.

So you're wrong to say that an abortion can never be
performed on a "baby". Unless you make it clear that you
are only giving your opinion.

Wrong. Seriously wrong and in a VERY important way.

You seem to assume that all opinions are of equal validity.

No. I'm saying that a British newspaper
is entitled to the opinion that aborted "babies" are being
disposed of in incinerators.
I'm saying that many people would share that opinion, and
I'm objecting to the idea that the newspaper should avoid
using the word.

That's absurd
an dangerous. If you start from the basis that an opinion becomes equal
with all other opinions simply because a number of people share that
opinion, then you have to accept that there are people who have the
opinion that sex with pre pubescent children is acceptable and their
opinion is as valid as those of us who consider any such act to be
effectively rape and therefore entirely unacceptable.

There is a consensus that sex with children
is wrong though.

The worth of any opinion depends on two things. Objectively it depends on
how well reasoned it is and how well it fits with the objective evidence.
Subjectively it depends on how well it matches your own moral values. In
the case of my example the opinions can easily be dismissed as morally
objectionable. In the case of your statement it simply doesn't fit the
dictionary definitions and thus fails to match the objective evidence.

We can argue about what point a foetus is redefined as a baby, but there
is no argument that it's only an abortion if it is performed on a foetus.
You can't make a logical case by simply misusing words. Particularly when
it comes to an important moral issue like abortion. At some point you have
to draw lines in the sand, and in this particular case that requires
everyone to use precise and consistent terminology.

Baby is a more emotive word than foetus.
But I think it's acceptable for a newspaper to use the term "baby"
when referring to abortions which can occur up to the ninth
month of pregnancy.

There's a very good
reason why there are a number of terms for a developing human being. There
are a number of very different stages between conception and birth and
they need to be looked at separately much of the time. If you wish to make
a case against all abortions then you still need to define a precise stage
of development after which a pregnancy can't ethically be terminated. If
you wish to go the every sperm is sacred route then again you need to use
the precise terminology. Otherwise it's just a woolly idea that implies
you find something unpleasant and wish it would go away, which isn't a
strong foundation for a moral argument.

I am against abortion, but I wasn't intending to argue against abortion

in this thread.

I was just defending the right of a newspaper to an opinion.