Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site iwu1d.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!iwu1d!tan
From: tan@iwu1d.UUCP (William Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Is the fetus a human being?  The final, final answer!
Message-ID: <194@iwu1d.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Apr-84 21:57:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: iwu1d.194
Posted: Sat Apr 28 21:57:33 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Apr-84 08:04:45 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 42


May I respectfully suggest that the question whether the fetus
is a human being be moved to a new and more appropriate newsgroup,
called net.etymology, net.lexicography, or even better yet,
net.how_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin.  The question
is clearly equivalent to "Is a horse embryo a horse or not?"
Many people (on both sides of the abortion question) seem to take
questions like this seriously, as if scientific evidence will some
day decide.  Unfortunately, many of these people write reams of
articles which clutter up net.abortion, and make it hard to find
the articles (again on both sides of the abortion question) which
discuss the real issues.  Can you people not see that the question
is solely a matter of definition?   The real question is: "Should
the human fetus (or embryo, or even fertilized egg) be guaranteed
the same level of protection under the law as are born human beings?"
Or perhaps "At what stage in human development should the human
organism begin to enjoy full protection under the law?"
	The standard "right-to-life" argument goes something like
this:
	1) The fetus is a human being from the moment of conception.
	2) Killing a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus via abortion
is thus destroying a (innocent) human being.
	3) Intentionally killing any innocent human being should
legally be considered murder.
	4) Abortion should therefore be legally considered murder.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I accept item 1).
Since it is merely a matter of definiton, why not?  Item 2 then
indeed does follow immediately.  But item 4) does not!  This is because
I can choose to reject item 3) if human being is so defined as to
include fertilized eggs, embryos or fetuses.  Now, the
"right-to-lifers" can ask the valid question "If you can exclude
fetuses from such protection, why not infants, old people, etc."
They can also raise valid points like "The fetus has a developed
brain and nervous system at X weeks."  The "pro-choicers" can counter
with arguments about the mother's welfare, etc.  These are the sort of
real issues that should, and to some extent are, being discussed
in this newsgroup.  But saying that abortion is murder because
the fetus is a human being, or conversely, saying that abortion
is O.K. because the fetus is not a human being, is utterly meaningless.
I do not think that such an important issue as abortion should be
decided by lexicographers.
				Bill Tanenbaum