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