"Human" (adjective) and "human" (noun)

 It is not uncommon for anti-abortion people to not understand that the word "human" has multiple meanings.

One meaning is just "biologically human," as in, for example, some biologically human skin cells. On this meaning, "human" is an adjective, and just because something is human--biologically human--doesn't mean it's wrong to kill that thing: for example, it's not wrong to kill some random skin cells.

Another meaning of "human" is a noun: "a human" or "humans." This use of human amounts to saying something like "person" or "human persons." Humans, on this meaning, are usually wrong to kill.

(There are complications though in that humans, on this meaning, don't usually seem to have a right to other humans' bodies, even if that means they will die; it is at least unclear what sacrifices anyone must make for other humans, meaning other people).

It's easy to see how these meanings differ. Consider a permanently comatose body, say of a beloved relative at the end of their life: we might say, "This body is human, but the human we knew is gone." The first use of "human" is an adjective; the second is a noun and we are referring to the person that used to be "in" in that body.

Perhaps this post and this graphic will help people better understand what "human" can mean and why the different definitions matter.

P.S. This was all reviewed in the classic 1973 article "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," so this type of distinction has been known for at least 50 years. Almost any ethics class on abortion will review this article:

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Warren.pdf

Embryos and fetuses are biologically alive: duh?

It is said that some people--some pro-choice people--deny that embryos and fetuses are biologically alive. 

I don't believe it. I think that when these people are asked about this issue, whether embryos and (beginning) fetuses are "alive" they are not thinking of "alive" in biological terms. 

They are thinking of "alive" in a manner akin to "alive in a morally significant way" or "living a life, with experiences": for example, "This man's body was biologically alive for 73 years, but his life ended decades before that: he was alive only for 34 years."

That "life" has multiple meanings or senses is well known to philosophers and healthcare providers who focus on end of life issues. I wrote about that in "When does life begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean."

Anyway, I did a poll that suggested, contrary to what some pro-choice folks insist, few people deny that embryos and beginning fetuses are biologically alive. While 5% claimed they are not, nobody explained why they thought that, despite my asking. 

So, no, it does appear that most people agree that embryos and (beginning) fetuses are biologically alive. Does that make killing them wrong? No, of course not. 

Embryos are biologically alive: they aren't dead, they aren't rocks, they aren't somehow neither biologically alive nor not alive.

*But just because something is biologically alive doesn't mean it's wrong to kill it: mold, fungus, etc.*

But they are biologically alive. Right?

— Nathan Nobis . com (@NathanNobis) April 30, 2024

@nathan.nobis Embryos are biologically alive, right? They aren't rocks, they aren't corpses, they aren't zombies. But just because something is biologically alive doesn't at all mean it's wrong to kill it. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #life ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Replying to @nathan.nobis Yes, embryos are biologically alive. Duh? #abortion #prochoice #prolife ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis