Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Faith vs. law vs. abortion
Message-ID: <214@opus.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-Mar-84 03:36:39 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.214
Posted: Sat Mar 10 03:36:39 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Mar-84 23:47:44 EST
References: <2579@rabbit.UUCP> <1953@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 20


 > Also, if you are going to say that we are not humans from the moment
 > of conception, then I think you should tell us what we *are* until
 > we are viable...
It should be adequately clear to both sides that it is not AGREED that a
fetus is the same as a human.  Both sides see a relation, but they do not
agree that fetus = human.  The pro-choice side says that there is a
difference which is significant enough to justify different treatment.

BUT, that doesn't mean that the pro-choice faction says that a fetus is not
human.  (I posted something related on the "fallacy of black and white" -
equivalently, a "law of the excluded middle" discussion.)  The logical
error of the anti-choice faction is to say, "If you say we aren't human,
then that means we're not human..." and off we go into viability, brain
waves, and a whole counterproductive set of non-issues.  It just isn't a
yes-no issue, and no amount of arguing can reduce the total wondrous
character of "what is human" to a single question with a single yes-no
answer!  I won't make humanity that cheap.
-- 
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd