It depends on how you define "human life", especially in what
context. One has to assume that the main context here is the
political definition. Of course science has to be included, but
not used in a vacuum. If you isolate the scientific definition,
you can say that it is murder to eliminate all sorts of other
human parts which have potential for "human life". TLP's
definition of "personhood" is very good, which is actually a much
better term for the abortion argument than "human life".
-Mark
PS: Spare us any further repetition of your clever redundancy
claiming no one cares about Paul's opinions. Your claim is false.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
------------------------
Quoth Paul Ireland:
> A zygote is not a human being. It does not posess human life.
it has
> the POTENTIAL for human life, but does not have it.
"Because Paul Ireland says so."
Of course, empirical observation and the scientific community say
Paul
Ireland is wrong, but that doesn't matter, because Paul Ireland
is
always right, at least as far as Paul Ireland and the people who
care
what Paul Ireland think (but I repeat myself again) are
concerned.
Tom Knapp
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
