A recent Letter to the Editor made the claim that a human fetus, because it shares characteristics with other species, cannot be classified as "human" and this non-human state exists past birth for a minimum of three months. This is a stunning and disturbing claim on several levels.

Logically, if it is not human, what is it? Broccoli? If not human, should premature babies be treated in veterinary clinics? If not human, why are the cadavers of unborn babies carved up and sold for their human tissues? Claiming that humans are not humans for the first year from conception is absurd a priori.

Scientifically, a genetic evaluation of the baby's DNA at ANY stage of development will show that it is indeed human. In fact it is uniquely human, an individual; distinct from the parents and sharing its unique combination with no other human, ever (except the rare identical twin). This particular combination of DNA that describes an individual has never before, nor will it ever again occur. It is singular in its existence.

Politically, the author is denying the humanity of a group of individuals because of the way they look. This is the same argument used to justify eugenically inspired genocide that slaughtered millions during the 20th century. WE are better than THEM so we are justified in killing them. Propaganda supporting genocide often portrays the oppressed as sub-human with animal features to assuage the conscience of both oppressor and bystander.

Philosophically, the assertion begs the question: What is human? A tough question with no easy answer, but we can gain some insight if we consider the opposite question. Nature without humans is, by definition, inhumane. The only law is the survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, where stark brutality is the norm or as Tennyson observed, "Nature, red in tooth and claw." So if inhuman is brutality, then an essential element of humanity is compassion. A clear measure of our humanity is the degree to which we are compassionate to those weaker than ourselves. Indeed, our very republic is founded on the sovereign rights of the individual and our laws protect the individual from the menace of the herd.

But our humanity goes beyond how we treat each other. We have laws requiring the humane treatment of animals. Why? If animals do not treat animals humanely, why should we? A lion killing a gazelle by crushing its throat is entertainment but a man kicking a dog is a crime. Clearly the primary motivation for laws prescribing the humane treatment of animals is to preserve our own humanity. It is not for the animals' sake that we treat them humanely; it is for our own sake. We demonstrate our human enlightenment by shunning the expression of brutality while protecting the helpless.

It is without question that life is a continuum where the human life of the mother is combined with the human life of the father to create a new and unique human life. Arguments to the contrary are sophistry designed to comfort the conscience of those who chose to diminish their own humanity.

Abortion is a response to an event; the need does not occur spontaneously. May I humbly suggest, for the sake of our humanity, that those on both sides of the debate take a quantum of the energy they expend in fighting for their position and apply it to eliminating the need. Surely both sides can agree that the desired situation is where abortions are rarely performed medical procedures that comport with the physician's maxim "Primum non nocere" - first, do no harm.

Brent Regan is a Coeur d'Alene resident.