Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!ark From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: a simple question Message-ID: <3234@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Oct-84 11:36:00 EDT Article-I.D.: rabbit.3234 Posted: Sat Oct 13 11:36:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Oct-84 07:06:39 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 36 The view that abortion is murder follows logically from the assumption that a fetus is a human being (an assumption I do not happen to hold). Once you make that assumption, it seems that you are forced to the conclusion that abortion should not be permitted under any circumstances, with a possible exception for the case where both mother and baby will surely die if the pregnancy is continued to term. Since I believe that the essence of humanity is rational consciousness, and everything we know about consciousness indicates that it is a function of the brain, I am forced to conclude that until it develops a brain capable of sustaining consciousness, a fetus is not a human being, and a pregnancy may be terminated before that point. (when that point might be is an interesting medical question, but is not relevant to the question I am about to ask) I am convinced that my view also follows consistantly from my assumptions, and am aware (of course) that others do not share these assumptions. There seem to be a significant number of people who hold a third view. I have never seen the reasoning behind this view articulated clearly, but its conclusion is that abortion should be prohibited except in cases of rape or incest. Now, I have trouble finding a set of assumptions from which this conclusion can be drawn. It seems to me that if a fetus is a human being, than abortion is murder and is not to be tolerated under any circumstances. If it is not human, than there is no justification for restricting abortion on demand. Can someone who holds this third view enlighten me (by mail please) on its philosophical basis?