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