Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site trw-unix.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trw-unix!prudence From: prudence@trw-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: A Response to the Straw Man Argument Message-ID: <358@trw-unix.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Jul-83 17:39:07 EDT Article-I.D.: trw-unix.358 Posted: Mon Jul 11 17:39:07 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 22:29:22 EDT Organization: TRW EDS, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 23 Several people have issued an anti-life argument to the net recently. The argument goes something like, "Since you oppose the pill, you must also oppose chastity. If you feel a woman has an obligation to bring a fetus to term, you must also feel that a woman has an obligation to fertilize every ovum. Since the conclusion I attribute to you is crazy, the premise I attribute to you is also crazy." Folks, this is an example of the "Straw Man" Fallacy, that is, put words in your opponent's mouth that no thinking man could accept and use the obvious rejection of a canard to attack the initial argument. If we are to be superhumanly generous to the people who have submitted these arguments, let us answer their question, "How can you draw a line between the fertilized ovum and an unfertilized one?" My answer is that the fertilized one will develop into a human being if the normal course of events is followed. Since the fetus is obviously not yet a human being, it does not enjoy full constitutional rights any more than a five-year-old has the right to bear arms; but since both the child and fetus are potential adults, they both enjoy *some* rights, the most basic of which is the right to life. By contrast, the unfertilized ovum will be discharged in the normal course of events. Prudence {decvax|ucbvax}trw-unix!prudence