Among the revisions, the word “fetus” in the amendment was changed to “unborn child” in the ballot description.
Semantics matter.
Very much so. It’s an appeal to emotion that they’re doing and it can work.
This specific one has worked pretty well to get people to care more about the fetus than the pregnant woman for the last few decades.
Most definitely. Though when you find yourself arguing a semantic position, it’s a very good sign that one of two things happened: You’re been arguing with a troll the whole time and aren’t actually getting anywhere, or, you already lost the debate and just don’t want to admit it.
Otherwise you’d be using something more compelling.
When it’s just you and one other person, an argument going in to debating over the meaning of individuals words usually is an avoidable dead end (like, if they insist on calling it to-mah-toe who cares, and if they insist on calling it “the Ukraine” it’s the “you aren’t actually getting anywhere” scenario you described), but when the whole argument is about how you each get to present this issue to a third party (i.e. voters) it’s a totally different situation and semantics is actually kind of the whole ball game.
Also, this isn’t just individual word choice, this is like a “theoretical degree in physics” level of misleading rephrase
The original language seeks to assure access to abortion through what is called viability, when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. It states, “abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability,” but not in cases where a treating physician deems the procedure necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.
LaRose’s summary turned that section on its head. It now says the amendment would “always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination” the life and health exception applies.
Very good point.
Imo, that wasn’t about semantics at all, but changed the entire outlook on the statement. I guess I would think it’s semantics if they changed one word. Instead they reworded the entire thing in a very convoluted manner, which I’m sure was on purpose.
Communication, especially with words, is difficult.
Unquestionably. You can also argue virtually anything from a semantic position though, just due to how complex the English language is.
I could spend hours constructing a semantic position for why the sky isn’t actually “blue”. It would be pointless, but I could pull it off.
It’s a very important thing, yes. But debating with it is still a very bad sign.
