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