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