Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Myth of Neutrality
Message-ID: <4123@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Jul-84 12:21:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4123
Posted: Sat Jul 21 12:21:31 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 12:21:31 EDT
References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> <146@uwmacc.UUCP>, <766@ihuxn.UUCP> <3259@cbscRe: The Myth of Neutrality
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 19

Yoshi Hosen misses the point. It doesn't matter a damn whether some
people think that aborting a fetus is murder and some people do not.
It either is or isn't regardless of who has what opinion. It is
simply a very difficult factual question to answer -- hence a there
is a lot of room for conflicting opinions. But no amount of belief that
a fetus is not alive is  ever going to make it dead if it is alive;
and no amount of belief that it is alive is going to make it alive
if it is not.

Changing definitions only passes the buck. If tomorrow I got people to
define ``human being'' to be ``something which such and such DNA
structure and 3 or more years old'' we would still be left with the problem
of ``what about killing 2 year olds'' and ``is this rotting hulk that
was my grandfather 55 years ago but I am not so sure of now still a human
being''. You could invent new words, but the problem remains the same.
And no amount of opinion is ever going to change the truth of the matter.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura