When I asked her for the umpteenth time whether a human embryo is *a* homo sapiens, she replied:
I can't agree or disagree with a question that doesn't even make grammatical sense. I've stated over and over that I agree with the tautological claim that a human embryo can taxonomically be classified as homo sapien.
Yes, the same way that a fingernail and hair can be classified as "homo sapien". But this is not about whether the human embryo is homo sapien: we both agree with that.
The question is whether the human embryo is *a* homo sapiens.
And she claims that my question doesn't even make sense grammatically. Which is weird, because I'm sure if I put the question to any college student, they would understand what I'm saying. "Homo sapiens" is used as a noun in plenty of contexts. (Example 1, Example 2 Example 3, Example 4)
She wrote:
|'ve also pointed out the difference between that and being a "human being".
I think she's anticipating.
I sense that there is some unwillingness to speak about the realities of the human embryo.
We all know that a human embryo is *a* homo sapiens. It makes perfect linguistic and biological sense to say that.
The problem is that some people are uncomfortable with the implications.
Because abortion kills that human embryo.
And if you kill a human embryo, you kill a homo sapiens.
And if you kill a homo sapiens, in plain English, you kill a human being.
Which is why abortion will never be de-stigmatized. I mean the fact that we have to do this linguistic song and dance proves it.
Do I mean to say that most people view the embryo as a person? No. But most people do place some value on the human embryo.
Abortion is not a right that's celebrated in this culture. In the hearts of the people, it's often a tolerated lesser evil.
That "tolerated lesser evil" status makes it extremely difficult to de-stigmatize. In fact, I think it's impossible. There will always be people to point out the truth.
