Every once in a while in the abortion debate, someone who favors legal and subsidized abortion will complain that the opponents have loaded the dice rhetorically by referring to human beings in the embryonic or fetal stages of development as “children,” as in “unborn children.” Jill Filipovic is the latest example, calling it an “Orwellian term” that aims at “replacing reality with right-wing orthodoxy.” She allows that it’s fine for parents and health-care workers to use such terms but “journalists, politicians, and others should prioritize accuracy and not adopt the new language.”
Her larger argument about the politicized recasting of language by pro-lifers is not compelling, coming as it does from someone whose own side of the debate has given us “pro-choice,” “abortion provider,” “reproductive justice,” “terminate a pregnancy,” “pregnancy tissue,” and many other euphemisms. But let’s zoom in on that bit about “new language” for a minute.
Here’s the first definition of “child” (1a) from the Oxford English Dictionary: “An unborn or newly born human being; a fetus, an infant.” It adds, “The primary sense appears to have been ‘fetus’.” Where does the term come from? “Cognate with Gothic kilþei womb, inkilþō pregnant woman, probably.”
When I last wrote about this terminological question, nine years ago, Merriam-Webster had the unborn sense of “child” as its primary definition, too. That is no longer true. It’s now 3a: “an unborn or recently born person.” Scroll down to “First known use of child” and you’ll find “before the 12th century, in the meaning defined at sense 3a.”
The word “fetus” is a comparative latecomer.