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