Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notes version 1.1usg 6/21/82; site ihlpf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpf!lab
From: lab@ihlpf.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: "Re: "Human" rights - is man special? - (nf)"
Message-ID: <170@ihlpf.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Jul-83 03:01:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpf.170
Posted: Tue Jul 19 03:01:29 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Jul-83 19:25:10 EDT
Organization: BTL Naperville, IL
Lines: 30

#R:qubix:-37900:ihlpf:22600024:  0:1412
ihlpf!dap1    Jul 18 23:56:00 1983

Well, I tried to write a balanced article and got heat from both Tim Maroney
AND Larry Bickford.  That's quite a feat.

Yes, Larry, I did make the statement that a zygote is not a human being.

>From Larry's article:
"FURTHERMORE, in the case of human sperm and egg, the resulting zygote is
genetically HUMAN and thus CANNOT become anything else.  Thus the zygote
is NOT a "potential human being" - it IS homo sapiens.  And it is NOT the
mother.  And therein is pro-life."

I thought Homo Sapiens was a mammal and that, among other things, mammals
have backbones.  I was also unaware of the definition of a human as
"anything that will eventually walk on two legs, talk, and think for itself
(in some cases)".  I always thought that a sack of beans was exactly that.
I never dreamed that I was actually holding a sack of bean PLANTS!  Imagine
that!

One other thing.  Although your logic is (as usual) nearly flawless, there
is one small point in error.  The egg and sperm cannot become a human by
themselves.  They require a womb, and in fact (and this is the point where
you may be surprised, Larry) are ATTACHED to the womb!  Thus, one could
make a case that the zygote is INDEED the mother and such an argument would
be at least as convincing as claiming that it is human.

Like I said earlier, Larry, this ISN'T a black and white issue and extreme
views on either side are ignoring the complexities therein.