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