Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!desjardins From: desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: \"Words mean what I pay them to mean . . .\" Message-ID: <501@h-sc1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 14:07:12 EDT Article-I.D.: h-sc1.501 Posted: Mon Aug 5 14:07:12 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 01:11:09 EDT References: <410@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center Lines: 32 > On the other hand, the function ALIVE(X) is fairly well-defined. Rich's > assertion that ALIVE(fetus) = FALSE was thus either a lie (intentional or > not) or an attempt to introduce a second meaning for ALIVE. If it was a > lie, it was definitely counterproductive. But even if it was an attempt > to redefine ALIVE it was counterproductive -- do we really need the sort > of confusion surrounding the word "alive" that we have surrounding the word > "human"? If every word used to communicate has extremely ambiguous meanings, > we will all be the worse off for it. > > -- Thomas Newton > Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA Before we go any further: 1. Do you propose that the fact that a fetus is or is not alive has any bearing on whether or not abortion is/should be moral or legal? If not, I really don't see what difference it makes HOW one defines "alive" as far as this debate is concerned. If so: 2. If a fetus is alive, is a plant alive? Why or why not? By the way, I think nearly every word you could possibly think of has ambiguous meanings. In the context of this debate many words (like "human" and "alive") are VERY ambiguous, mainly because you are using them in a different sense than I am. You can't just say "there is only one definition of word X and it is the one that I am using" unless everyone else agrees to it. So why don't you let us know your definitions of "human" and "alive" and we'll tell you what we think. marie desjardins park