Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihnp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan From: dolan@ihnp1.UUCP (Mike Dolan) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Faith vs. law vs. abortion Message-ID: <216@ihnp1.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Mar-84 18:05:08 EST Article-I.D.: ihnp1.216 Posted: Fri Mar 9 18:05:08 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Mar-84 13:24:38 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 30 The response from "rabbit!jj" (Sorry, I don't have a name) that stated that there was a fallacy in my statements about the "moment of conception" needs just a little clarification. First, I was not suggesting that my three points be considered ground rules that the discussion had to work from. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I was trying to establish the basis for most pro-life arguments. I will accept the fact that you do not agree with my point of view about an unborn child being a human being from the moment of conception. I posed the problem, for those who do not accept the moment of conception as the beginning of a human being, of defining what it was between the moment of conception and birth which did make the "it" a human being. It appears that "rabbit!jj" believes that being able to exist outside the womb without "extraordinary mechanical support" is the criteria for being a human being. Against that position I argue that you must apply your criteria evenly and across the board. By the above definition of "human being", I cannot claim that someone in a critical care facility in a hospital is a human being if that someone is depending upon "extraordinary mechanical support." I cannot, therefore, accept that definition. Please reconcile my argument with your definition. Have a good day, Mike Dolan AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IL ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan