Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!spp1!johnston
From: johnston@spp1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Dividing Lines
Message-ID: <150@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 12:47:17 EST
Article-I.D.: spp1.150
Posted: Thu Jan 24 12:47:17 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 07:34:20 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 23

The trouble with compromise on a dividing line is that is dependent on
what your'e looking for. If you want a line so that you may state that
anything before this line is not life, then you may pick the earliest date
offerred and everyone would be satisfied. From what I hear that point
would be conception.

If you want a line so that you may state that everything after this line
has life, you may pick the latest date offerred and everyone would be
satisfied. This date would be birth by most concensus. Some have ventured
later dates though.

But life is a binary variable. It is true or false. Therefore any dividing
line has to, by defintion, make both statements. And therefore a compromise 
is impossible unless the basic statements change, but then life would not, 
could not be the criteria. 

There is another statement though. How about a dividing line that preserves
life when it is there (by consensus by the latest dates), is allowed to 
disregard anything without life (by consensus by the earliest date), 
and (the bomb) preserves the possibility of life when we can't be sure due
to no consensus (the delta in between). 

				Mike Johnston