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