Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!bane From: bane@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Abortion Message-ID: <5369@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-Feb-84 17:50:03 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.5369 Posted: Wed Feb 22 17:50:03 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Feb-84 06:14:40 EST References: <212@ihnp1.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 25 There is another side to this "Let's be non-emotional and rational about this" argument. The point is conceded that there is nothing about the birth process that causes a fetus to suddenly become a human being. The point that the degree of life support provided by the mother is not relevant is also conceded. However, this does NOT mean that the fetus is a human being all the way back to conception. As a reductio ad absurdium example, take the case of identical twins. At conception, there was one cell which divided into two. Through some not-well understood mechanism, those two cells separated and became two individuals. Does this mean there was one human being at conception, and two afterwards, whereas if those cells hadn't separated, there would have still been only one? This can, of course be extended to the cases of identical triplets and quadruplets, with appropriate extensions in confusion. If both these "rational" arguments are acceptable, all we can conclude is that there must be a line somewhere between conception and birth where "humanity" starts. I don't know where that line is, I don't think anyone else does, and I don't think defining such a point in law is a good idea. No flames, please; this is all I have ever had to say on this subject. -- Arpa: bane.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!bane