Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Dividing Lines
Message-ID: <277@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 12:11:09 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.277
Posted: Mon Jan 28 12:11:09 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jan-85 01:29:39 EST
References: <150@spp1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 21
Summary: 

In article <150@spp1.UUCP> johnston@spp1.UUCP writes:
>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.
>
	The problem with this is the *earliest* dividing line is
actually *ovulation* not conception!  The reasons for considering
this the significant point are just as strong as for choosing
conception, and there is *very* little difference between them.
This is the basic point of my articles on the arbitrariness of
dividing lines in living things.  Life is *not* a binary variable,
it is a contuum.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
 or
quad1!psivax!friesen