Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: the 'pro-life' fallacy, plus answer to Ken
Message-ID: <629@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 17:27:49 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.629
Posted: Thu Jan 24 17:27:49 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 08:59:06 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 24

[whose side am I on, anyway?]
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
> 1.  A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens.  If this is in
>     dispute, examine the genetic makeup.
> 2.  [It's] a separate individual.
> 3.  All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right
>     to live.  Other rights are subordinate to this one.
> 4.  Since the fetus is a human individual, it has the right to live,

Step 4 does not follow unless "human" in 3 is interpreted as "member
of the species homo sapiens."  But in that case, 3 is -- to say the
least -- not intuitively obvious.  (Why should species membership have
any bearing on rights?)  In fact, it begs the question.

From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP ("Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery)
> Why is the distinction between doing harm and refusing aid
> irrelevant?  Why do you think the two are [morally -pvt] the same?

Because the results are the same, and they're what count.

				--the ever-unpopular THIRD side,
				Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
(Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.)