Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: abortion Message-ID: <6976@watmath.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 17:48:45 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.6976 Posted: Tue Feb 21 17:48:45 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Feb-84 02:42:11 EST Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 27 Mike Dolan asks: If an unborn child is non-human, what is it that makes it a human being at birth? This is the question I tried answering in my previous posting. I am not satisfied with the answer I just gave (+ the fact that I didn't manage to format my answer before it got posted) Let me answer it a bit more directly: birth does not make a child more "human", it changes its status in society in that it is not a direct depen- dant on its mother. If the argument in favor of abortion at any time in the development of the fetus is that fetuses are not human before birth, but are after birth, the argument is flawed, as you pointed out. However the arguments in favor of abortion at any time before birth are not based on the belief that fetuses magically gain personhood at birth, but on the belief that it is better in certain curcumstances to kill a fetus rather than carry the pregnancy through. There is a branch in the pro-choice movement which believes that abortions should be allowed depending on the development of the fetus. This branch believes that there is a reasonable cutoff time where mistakes can be minimised. Science gives a more or less satisfactory answer to this question. I am not satisfied with it. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley