Me and my parents were talking last night about what it is to be human. Two factors had sparked this debate: the murder of ken biggley and the decision of the charlotte wyatt case. Firstly, we were debating over whether charlotte was human – I think she most certainly is, reguardless of what she can and cannot do. from a very reductionist standpoint, she cannot do what most other humans do: talk, think, love. This was the crux of my dads argument last night, and I think its bollox. She is loved by her parents, she loooks like a human. she should be valued as any other human being and given the chance to live. After all, doctors once said similr things of me.

Later in the evening, we got to talking about the bigley murder. This discusts me, as it will most people, but at one stage I forgot myself and dscribed his captors s not human. dad pulled me over, saying “as soon as we define such people as not human, we forget that they have motives; as soon as we define them as animals, they become easier to kill, and we become as bad as them.” dad wad, of course, right, but it struck me as odd that he could define a disabled baby as not being fully human, and then defend the main tennet of libealism so eloquenttly. Not sure I understand.