Welcome to Gaia! ::

Is that what they tell you? No, all abortions are legal up to the very last trimester. I beilive a veryfew states have completly legalised it in any case, however, the vast majority of states have made third trimester abortions illigle unless there is a complication that coudl end the mothers life.

And what I posted was an exact definition, and exactly how its done, in full detail. If it offended you in any way, that can't be helped, the truth hurts

Not to mention that this guild is called the Pro-Life guild? If there's a bit of emotional bias, which I believe is small if it's there, then who cares?

We are a bit emotional about this subject. As long as there isn't any technical bias, it's fine.

That's ok, I was just pointing out that I would have written it from a more objective point of veiw, not suggesting it be changed. I could write the same thing up in a manner completley devoid of emotion. I was just highlighting what a subjective issue every little technicality can be.

What? What are you talking about? He didn't right it up; He copied from some web page. Probably a Pro-Life one; Partially because I find it highly doubtful that there are a good number of Pro-Choice pages that tell you how the surgery is performed.

Also, skimming over it again, the only "emotionally biased" things I can see are that it sometimes refers to the fetus as "baby" or "child" which are both correct terms, even if they have slightly more emotion attached to them. Besides that it seems very straightforward, no moral judgements, just stating fact.

So I don't see what your problem is.

Yes, you could write it completely devoid of emotion, but there is no need to; This was not meant as a debate thread. It is a thread where the facts about abortional procedures are set out, in case that we ever have need of them in debate. And, since this is a Pro-Life guild, we tend to think of the fetus as a baby and a child. Because that's what it is. Because "fetus" -is- devoid of emotion, some of us find it slightly offensive; After all, using a term devoid of emotion implies that there is no emotional value to it. Which we believe there is.

Isn't that kindof what you said before? anyway I shall make my response clearer as I agree with you it was a little vague.

All I was trying to highlight was that even such trivial things, like which word you use, and for what purpose can be highly subjective. Sortof like how the Police are not allowed to use leading questions when interveiwing Eye witnesses as it leads to flawed and useless evidence.

I was just raising a point of interest on the psychology of wording that is all.

I was not, and here I repeat NOT suggesting that he change it in anyway, like I said before, you are as free to your opinion as I am to mine. My opinion does not rely on yours anymore than your opinion relies on mine. What you believe is your choice.

why do you agree with shortening it, though?

I suppose I can sort of understand that. Your definition of when a person has rights is a little later than mine, but you still want people to live by it legally because otherwise it seems cruel.