Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!nbires!boulder!richard
From: richard@boulder.UUCP (Richard Byrd)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion
Message-ID: <29@boulder.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Feb-86 08:37:40 EST
Article-I.D.: boulder.29
Posted: Sat Feb  1 08:37:40 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Feb-86 01:28:13 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <1730@druxu.UUCP> <30@valid.UUCP> <412@cisden.UUCP> <892@cybvax0.UUCP> <464@cisden.UUCP>
Reply-To: richard@boulder.UUCP (Richard Byrd)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 18

In <464@cisden.UUCP> John Woolley states why he believes murder to be wrong.

>As to the first.  I claim to be a humanist, by which I mean that I believe,
>without needing to inquire really deeply into the reasons for the belief and
>without any formal proof asked or given, that human things are good.  I
>believe that people are valuable and, yes, inherently dignified; and that
>this value and dignity do not depend on my or anyone else's perception, but
>are a real aspect of what people *are*. ... 

I think most all reasonable moral people agree with these sentiments
but they are too vague too be useful in the present context.
For most purposes it is perhaps not necessary to inquire into the reasons
for your belief.  However, when agreement as to who is human is lacking
it is necessary to say what properties of a human make human life valuable in
order to determine whether a given entity deserves the respect accorded humans.
If you cannot do this you are reduced to arguing about the definition of
"human" which is purely a matter of semantic convention and not necessarily
related to the value and goodness of humans.