From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:44:01 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <C0CMoK.45t@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>     "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
>>appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.  Second, your use
>>of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
>>considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).
> 
> Well, if you hadn't said "definition", I would have let this go, but...
> According to Funk & Wagnals Standard Desk Dictionary:
> 
> child:  1. An offspring of human parents.  2. A boy or girl, most commonly one
> between infancy and youth.  3. A descendant.  4. A childish person.  5. A
> product of a specified condition, quality, etc: a child of joy.

     I used the word "child" based on the definition in Webster's Ninth 
New Collegiate Dictionary (1991).

       child: 1. a : An unborn or recently born person. 
                 b (dialect) : A female infant.
              2. a : A young person esp. between infancy and youth.
                 b : A childlike or childish person.
                 c : A person not yet of age.
                 ....

> (4 and 5 obviously don't apply in this case)  I looked up offspring, and it
> is similar with no specific mention that the unborn would be considered.  The
> second definition implies that the unborn really *don't* satisfy it since they
> are not in the range of infancy to youth.  (I also object to the phrase "unborn
> person" since it is a contradiction, except *possibly* very late-term ones.)

     An "unborn person" is not a contradiction according to "Webster."

> If you insist on using "child" to refer to the unborn, please remember that it
> is only by a stretch of the definition (a reasonable one, but still a stretch)
> and not by a specific definition itself.

      As you can see, I am not stretching the definition.  Have you ever 
heard the expression "with child" used for a pregnant woman (yes, it is
somewhat archaic)?

>  On the other hand, calling them a fetus is excatly the definition.

     It is exact for any unborn or unhatched vertebrate after attaining
some development.

>  The poster was using more precise terminology
> to clarify the distinction between a person (who is born) and an unborn human
> being (I hope you don't find that "dehumanizing").

     Your wording is consistent -- you refer to a "person" and an "unborn 
human being" in the same sentence.  The poster to whom I was replying
used "human person" (a double referennce to humanity)  and "fetii and zygotes" 
(wnot 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.  :-)
 
> I do not oppose the death penalty, either.  One reason is this:  A person
> murders a dozen victims. (a serial killer)  When we finally catch him (most
> serial killers are men, though a few are women) we throw him in prison where
> he gets food and shelter for many years at our expense.  There is the chance
> that we will be unable to keep feeding all the prisoners and some will have
> to be let out early, and that serial killer *could* be one of them (though I
> would hope the conditions of the sentence would make that impossible).

     There was a local trial here where two teenage girls were
found guilty of murder by igniting a 12-year-old girl and watching
her burn to death.  They got sentenced to 60 years, and will be
eligible for parole in 30 years.  In my opinion, the gravity of this
crime warrants them being "off the streets" for much longer than 30 years.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion