[toenail]

"I understand your point, but I believe you are mistaken. The term "baby" isn't ambiguous-Webster's even lists "newborn" as a synonym. I'm not trying to equivocate here-I'm trying (desperately) to use the word correctly. Creating your own definition will tend to obscure the issue, tho'."

Dictionaries record the word as it is used, with variations. If you're talking to a pregnant woman, you don't ask "How's the fetus?" (I don't, anyway.) You ask, "So, how's the baby?"

I use the word "baby" in one way; you use the word "baby" in another. But I doubt we'll have any disagreement at all over what DNA is, or what a chromosome is, or how to count to 46 (maybe little more or less, in some cases). We shouldn't have any disagreement at all in discussing X and Y chromosomes, or whether or not a human organism is genotypically male or female (from conception).

All else is semantic games. I can unequivocally state that every human organism not posing a clear and immediate threat to another's life has a natural and unassailable human right to live, without discriminating against that human on any basis, including: number of cells, time in existence, light-absorption level of the skin, presence or absence of a Y chromosome, or physical proximity to another human organism.

"Ambiguity is the devil's volleyball." -- Emo Phillips.

[toenail]

P.S. At the very least, won't you agree that companies and organizations marketing a "contraceptive" that frequently works as an abortifacient is committing a vile and nasty fraud, when they don't manifestly inform the consumer that the product sometimes works in such a way that they may find morally abhorrent?