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.