At 09:47 PM 5/18/2005 EDT, Bob wrote: >> The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a >> >distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The >> >question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is >> >what "human" actually means. >> >> If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. > > >Cleaver answer.
It also has the advantage of being true. >But the problem with all of this back and forth about when an >embryo becomes a human or however you want call is that it attempts to assign >an essential quality (human or not) to a process that is incremental. There >is nothing essential about the process of a fetus becoming a human. It is a >gradual incremental process that does not stop a birth but continues throughout >life. As a scientist, I am sure that you agree that the unborn child is, in fact, homo sapiens. So, what you are really saying is that there are some humans who do not enjoy the protection of human rights. So, why are you so quick to defend an American legal system that extends the protection of human rights at the moment a child leaves the womb of his or her mother, with the intent of the mother? Or do you have other criteria for cases in which human rights should not be extended to certain humans? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
