> You define "child" based on a religious definition. That's /your/ religion, not mine. Feel free to follow it all you want, you don't need to involve the rest of us. We're not talking about children, we're talking about fetuses.
Fetuses are unborn children. I realize this definition is rather inconvenient to your fragile narrative, but it is THE definition, not just my definition. Please refer to the dictionary, #4: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/child
> a human fetus
Or the Merriam webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
> 3a : an unborn or recently born person
or the oxford dictionary: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...
> a young human who is not yet an adult
Please, keep talking. I am enjoying this. Next you'll argue categorical definitions and facts are a religion.
You define "child" based on a religious definition. That's /your/ religion, not mine. Feel free to follow it all you want, you don't need to involve the rest of us. We're not talking about children, we're talking about fetuses.
> Do you really want to be play that game? Because I'll have a field day with you.
Ah, an internet tough guy. Feel free to "have a field day." Your entire argument is premised on the idea that a fetus is a human life, which only has basis in religion.