In a message dated 5/16/2005 10:38:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a > >distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The > >question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is > >what "human" actually means. > > If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. Cleaver answer. But the problem with all of this back and forth about when an embryo becomes a human or however you want call is that it attempts to assign an essential quality (human or not) to a process that is incremental. There is nothing essential about the process of a fetus becoming a human. It is a gradual incremental process that does not stop a birth but continues throughout life. It is similar to the 19th century arguement about the origin of the species. Before Darwin species were thought as real distinct seperate entities. Darwin showed that while species are somewhat distinct they are not in fact seperate entities. They arise from prior species and the transiton form a prior species to a new species is a gradual (although often quite abrupt in geologic time) process. That is the way individual humans are. We are distinct but arise gradually. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
