Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Is the fetus a human being?  The final, final answer!
Message-ID: <695@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 30-Apr-84 00:51:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.695
Posted: Mon Apr 30 00:51:35 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 1-May-84 07:20:13 EDT
References: <194@iwu1d.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 24

I thought of reviewing the articles on my machine to see whether there
actually was a preponderance of news items characterizing abortion as
"murder", but thought better of it once I realized the size of the
undertaking.  But, I don't think that this phrase has cropped up too often.
In any event, it is a red flag phrase worth eliminating from this discussion.

As to a fetus' "humanity", well, your restatement is operationally much more
useful, at least for those without religious beliefs, but you surely should
realize that the word "human" has more connotations that strictly species
identification.  To say that a horse embryo is a horse is NOT the same as
saying a human embryo is human.  That is, to claim that a being is "human"
means precisely what you rephrase: that it has the rights that we endow to all
our fellow humans (and, for religious believers, a soul.) So, what's the beef?

Oh, as long as we're dismissing arguments, this whole bit about fetuses
feeling pain strikes me as completely irrelevant to a discussion of the ethics
of abortion qua abortion, as well as being on philosophically shaky ground.
If we are suddenly aligning with the anti-vivisectionists to request abortions
less "painful" to the fetus, then it is probably worth some discussion.
But I suspect that most of us are concerned with more basic issues.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA