--- steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
All of it has bearing. Likewise you imply that the medical-technical terms like "IDE" are somehow neutral, or otherwise non-judgemental.
The medical terms were not created with value judgments on what they are describing in mind, while terms like 'partial-birth abortion' deliberately *were*. That = POV.
Note that bedside manner requires doctors to echo the sentiments of the parent(s): Ie. abortionists might call it "tissue," while OBGYNs might call it a "baby."
Abortionists might. But a doctor would call it a fetus, embryo or zygote depending on its gestational stage.
I dont think this is correct in the most precise or even common use of the terms. While "human life" requires "human (animal) cells", the cells themselves arent particularly human (as Daniel pointed out).
Of course the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (gestation is all about putting all those parts together to form an independent human life). Yet almost every cell in a human body is functioning and has a full complement of unique human genes (mature red blood cells being the most notable exception). That makes them both alive and human.
Biologically speaking, theres little to distinguish a chimp from any given human who might look like one.
False. They belong to different species; that's not a 'little' thing at all. Chimps also have 24 sets of chromosomes, while humans have 23. Further, about 30,000 human genes make about 150,000 human proteins. So pure genetic correspondence between species is a simplistic argument to allude to since it is the complex interactions of those genes with each other and their products that create the real differences.
This list is not about this, so this will be the last message I send or even read in this thread.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com