Language is imprecise. That’s where the ambiguity needs tolerance. A child can be a grown person and a person growing up, depending on context. There is no orphanage for people in their 40s. The original argument seems to hinge on the word child being basically equal in meaning to human being in all contexts. Which isn’t the case all the time. And it isn’t in the context of orphans.
Not unless we are all dying in childhood.
orphan
noun
or·phan [ˈȯr-fən]
1 child deprived by death of one or usually both parents
We never stop being our parent’s child.
You need to work on your ambiguity tolerance.
And yet that’s just coming from someone with a different valuation upon such, and doesn’t mean OP is off-base, whatsoever.
But I just commented on my own situation here, if you care to examine my own example.
Language is imprecise. That’s where the ambiguity needs tolerance. A child can be a grown person and a person growing up, depending on context. There is no orphanage for people in their 40s. The original argument seems to hinge on the word child being basically equal in meaning to human being in all contexts. Which isn’t the case all the time. And it isn’t in the context of orphans.