Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site cwruecmp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!cwruecmp!decot From: decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Society Needs a Definition of "Human" Message-ID: <1103@cwruecmp.UUCP> Date: Tue, 13-Mar-84 20:04:01 EST Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.1103 Posted: Tue Mar 13 20:04:01 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Mar-84 08:05:02 EST References: <697@houxz.UUCP> Organization: CWRU Computer Engr. Cleveland, Ohio Lines: 22 I submit the following criteria for deciding whether or not an object is human, assuming the term "conception" is generally agreed upon: If the object originates from a conception between two gametes, at least one of which is of \homo spaiens/, inside a woman or otherwise, then while it has any capacity to observe its environment and maintain recorded information internally, the object is human. If the object loses permanently either of these capacities, it is no longer human. An object is not human until it acquires these capabilities. This definition incorporates my view that human life is pointless if it has no individual record of experience, and worth very much if it does. Permanent cessation of electrical brain activity is the legal definition of death, and is a reasonable one to apply to the question of when a human being starts. There is no "being" if there is nobody to experience the feeling of "being". Dave Decot "Politicians are human, too."