| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Erich Kohl" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2006 11:43:07 PM |
| Object: |
Ratzinger looking out for "unborn children" |
While watching the Canadian news this past evening, I saw a video clip
of Ratzinger criticizing Canada for its abortion policies, saying that
it has resulted in the killing of "unborn children."
Of course, the first thought I had was, "The concept of an unborn
child is an oxymoron." I also know that I've read that statement
before in this newsgroup as well.
What confuses me is the fact that on Dictionary.com, one of the
entries for the word "child" is defined as "An unborn infant; a
fetus."
When in the world did *this* happen? How can something that's growing
inside of a woman and completely feeding off of her be called a
"child?"
How many people keep ultrasound photographs in their wallet?
.
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Ratzinger looking out for "unborn children" |
09 Sep 2006 02:27:50 PM |
|
|
Erich Kohl wrote:
What confuses me is the fact that on Dictionary.com, one of the
entries for the word "child" is defined as "An unborn infant; a
fetus."
When in the world did *this* happen? How can something that's growing
inside of a woman and completely feeding off of her be called a
"child?"
The ting about language is it's always changing due to popular use,
and dictionaries just record that use. When you see something like this
travesty of a definition, it means the bad guys are winning, that
they're defining the woman out of a pregnancy and making it all about a
blob of cells.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erich Kohl" |
|
| Title: Re: Ratzinger looking out for "unborn children" |
09 Sep 2006 04:05:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 14:27:50 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Erich Kohl wrote:
What confuses me is the fact that on Dictionary.com, one of the
entries for the word "child" is defined as "An unborn infant; a
fetus."
When in the world did *this* happen? How can something that's growing
inside of a woman and completely feeding off of her be called a
"child?"
The ting about language is it's always changing due to popular use,
and dictionaries just record that use. When you see something like this
travesty of a definition, it means the bad guys are winning, that
they're defining the woman out of a pregnancy and making it all about a
blob of cells.
I guess that's true.
At least it was second on the list, overshadowed by "A person between
birth and puberty."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
