Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Perhaps my question isn't so simple
Message-ID: <675@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 17:51:57 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.675
Posted: Fri Jan 18 17:51:57 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 01:53:50 EST
References: <3264@alice.UUCP> <662@bunker.UUCP> <235@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 45

Gary Samuelson, quoting himself:
> >To refute the above argument [in favor of making abortion illegal],
> >you need to show either that something
> >other than harm or threat to harm justifies the killing of a human
> >being, or that pregnancy in general causes sufficient harm or
> >threat of harm to justify killing of a human being, or that the
> >fetus is not a human being.

To which Stanley Friesen replies:
> 	What this comes down to is what is meant by "human-being".

To which I say: exactly.  You don't accept my definition of
humanity; fine.  Please suggest another one, at least as
objectively measurable.  An example of a definition which
is not measurable is the definition of a human being as
creature with the ability to think.

> You believe that humanity is acquired at the moment of conception.
> I believe that there is a gradual, step-by-step developement from
> an unfertilized ovum to an adult human being, at about 18 yrs
> past birth, and that there are no transitions that are sufficiently
> more significant than others to *require* a recognition of a
> change of status.  Thus *any* splitting points must be *arbitrary*.
> Thus we are back to the original question, why should *your*
> dividing line be prefered to anyone elses.

Because the dividing line I use (it's not *mine*, I didn't invent
it) is measurable, and ensures that we don't deny the right of
life to any human being, even if we aren't sure when an embryo
becomes a human being.  Do you have a dividing line for which
you can make the same statement?

> After all, almost any
> argument which can be advanced for the "humanity" of a fertilized
> embryo can be applied equally well to an unfertilized ovum,
> which would make failure to become pregnant equivalent to murder!

An ovum has but half of the chromosomes necessary to make a human
being.  And why do you pick the ovum?  Don't the sperm fit into
the development?  But if you mentioned the sperm, then you would
have to admit that it takes both an ovum and a sperm to make one
human being.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys