From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The usual back-and-forth
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:28:20 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1993Jan5.153510.1062@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> In article <1993Jan5.094401.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

  [discussion of two definitions of "child" deleted -- cdp]

> 	Demonstrating that non-medical dictionaries have slightly different
> definitions of the term "child".  This hardly constitutes overwhelming
> evidence for calling zygotes, embryos, or fetii something else in order to
> score rhetorical points.
> [...]

     Just wondering -- what do you call the class of "beings" composed
of zygotes, embryos, and fetii?  Moreover, what do you call the class
of *human* zygotes, embryos, and fetii?  I refer to this class as
unborn children -- based on Webster's definition.  

  [more deletions]

>>  The poster to whom I was replying
>>used "human person" (a double referennce to humanity)  and "fetii and zygotes" 
>>(not necessarily human) in the same sentence.  (Maybe the expression 
>>"human person" was used to distinguish from those biological android 
>>entities of which we read in the Dr. Beter's Audio Letters.  :-)
>> 
> 	That was me.  I was using them in the same paragraph to 
> point out the difference between a *person* (with the resulting full legal
> rights) and a z/e/f.  I thought that was obvious at the time.
> 	If you want to quote me, I'd appreciate it if you'd actually do so,
> rather than provide a distorted paraphrase as part of a personal cheap shot.

     My paraphrase is not distorted; you used "human person" and "fetii
and zygotes" in the same sentence.  Where is the personal cheap shot of
which you speak?  If you're referring to the Dr. Beter line, it was
intended to make fun of Dr. Beter's allegation that Presidents Carter
and Reagan, Anwar Sadat, Leonid Brezhnev, etc., were actually biological 
android entities.

> 	That said, I think it's pretty obvious that this has deteriorated
> into yet another visit to the talk.abortion Argument Clinic ("Yes it is!  No
> it isn't!").  The pro-life side has used the term "unborn child" so long as
> part of its rhetorical arsenal that it's pretty much psychologically and
> politically impossible for them to back down now, even when the substitution
> of the term "child" for "embryo" leads to bizarre results (does everybody
> remember the legal battle over ownership of those seven frozen "children" last
> year? Talk about "biological androids"....).

     Now, you're getting absurd.  Those seven entities of which you
write were/are human embryos -- specifically.  You must be imagining
things regarding your "impossible to back down" statement.  I do not
avoid the terms "human embryo," "human fetus," and "human zygote," but
realize that they correspond to the amount of development attained.
The class consisting of all three groups can be called unborn children.
Do pro-choicers ever use this expression?  

> 	For at least some members of that group, it seems to be almost as
> essential as the notion that all pro-choicers are either evil or simply
> misguided.  Or that all doctors who perform abortions are greedy, immoral
> swine.  The Enemy must remain a horde of demons in order to keep the troops
> in line.

     If anything, it's the victims -- not some enemy -- that "keep 
the troops in line."

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion