Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-cad.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!mjc
From: mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Perhaps my question isn't so simple
Message-ID: <249@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 20-Jan-85 17:26:55 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-c.249
Posted: Sun Jan 20 17:26:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 06:14:46 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 27

From: masscomp!philabs!bunker!garys@CMU-CS-PT.ARPA (Gary M. Samuelson)
>> [Someone on when humanity starts]
>> ... there are no transitions that are sufficiently
>> more significant than others to *require* a recognition of a
>> change of status.  Thus *any* splitting points must be *arbitrary*.
>> Thus we are back to the original question, why should *your*
>> dividing line be prefered to anyone elses.
>
>Because the dividing line I use (it's not *mine*, I didn't invent
>it) is measurable, and ensures that we don't deny the right of
>life to any human being, even if we aren't sure when an embryo
>becomes a human being.  Do you have a dividing line for which
>you can make the same statement?

If all we're looking for is a measurable dividing line, what is wrong with
time of birth?  It's certainly a lot more obvious than time of conception. [I
can see it now: the anti-choice folks get conception declared as start of
life, then prosecute women for reckless endangerment for (say) drinking 
and risking a two-day-old fetus' existence.]  It's quite measurable, and makes
sense in that it is the moment when the fetus ceases to be physically
dependent on its host for its own existence.  I.e., at that point it ceases
to be a parasite and becomes a proper individual.

							-Dragon
-- 
UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg