lab@ihlpf.UUCP (07/19/83)
#R:qubix:-37900:ihlpf:22600024: 0:1412
ihlpf!dap1 Jul 18 23:56:00 1983
Well, I tried to write a balanced article and got heat from both Tim Maroney
AND Larry Bickford. That's quite a feat.
Yes, Larry, I did make the statement that a zygote is not a human being.
>From Larry's article:
"FURTHERMORE, in the case of human sperm and egg, the resulting zygote is
genetically HUMAN and thus CANNOT become anything else. Thus the zygote
is NOT a "potential human being" - it IS homo sapiens. And it is NOT the
mother. And therein is pro-life."
I thought Homo Sapiens was a mammal and that, among other things, mammals
have backbones. I was also unaware of the definition of a human as
"anything that will eventually walk on two legs, talk, and think for itself
(in some cases)". I always thought that a sack of beans was exactly that.
I never dreamed that I was actually holding a sack of bean PLANTS! Imagine
that!
One other thing. Although your logic is (as usual) nearly flawless, there
is one small point in error. The egg and sperm cannot become a human by
themselves. They require a womb, and in fact (and this is the point where
you may be surprised, Larry) are ATTACHED to the womb! Thus, one could
make a case that the zygote is INDEED the mother and such an argument would
be at least as convincing as claiming that it is human.
Like I said earlier, Larry, this ISN'T a black and white issue and extreme
views on either side are ignoring the complexities therein.