Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxi.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxi!cher From: cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Inconsistency in Right-to-life position? Message-ID: <1034@ihuxi.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Aug-84 15:05:41 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxi.1034 Posted: Tue Aug 21 15:05:41 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 01:59:08 EDT References: <476@ames.UUCP>, <25@gymble.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 17 > The bottom line in the abortion issue is "Are you sure that abortion > is not murder of an innocent life?" Unless you are sure, why take > the risk? Remember, the burden of proof is on the pro-choice, not > the the pro-life. Innocent until proven guilty. When you eat a steak, do you indirectly condone "murder of an innocent life"? Yes. Or, maybe you can prove that humans have soul ans cows/pigs/monkeys do not. Either way, the burden of proof is on you. Don't kill germs "unless you sure". To summarize: the quoted pro-life argument as formulated is at best unfinished. I doubt that it can be pursued successfully at all. Unaborted Mike Musing