Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Society Needs a Definition of "Human" Message-ID: <223@opus.UUCP> Date: Tue, 13-Mar-84 14:14:15 EST Article-I.D.: opus.223 Posted: Tue Mar 13 14:14:15 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Mar-84 19:46:26 EST References: <697@houxz.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 27 <> > Some of Paul Dubuc's comments point out the biggest > issue of the abortion debate. It isn't simply the issue > of when does a fetus become human, its the issue of what is "human" > versus "not human". Not only is this a problem for the abortion > debate, but euthanasia, whaling and several other current social > debates. > > > Again, you avoid the contention that the embryo is a human individual by > > saying that is has only the "potential" of becoming human. There is nothing > > that is added to the embryo (except food and oxygen -- don't we all need it?) > > to make it more human as time goes on. It just takes care of itself. A > > tapeworm will never be a human. No, this won't get us anywhere...There are more possibilities than "human" and "not human". The universe just isn't that simple. If there were any possibility whatsoever for finding a single, unique distinction between "human" and "not human" that most people could agree upon, the whole issue would be moot. > > (Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human > > being until it is proved otherwise.) This is just plain stupid. The base of the discussion is a definition of "human". Definitions are not subject to proof, period. If you want to be stubborn about the human/nonhuman dichotomy, go ahead - but don't base your position on waiting for your opponents to prove a non-provable statement. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd