Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Humanity Defined)
Message-ID: <1335@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 03:30:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1335
Posted: Tue Oct  8 03:30:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 06:56:22 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24

> [Dave Messer]
> It seems rather clear to me.  There is obviously not a concensus as
> to the humanity of the fetus.  Since this disention exists we should
> choose a course that will produce the least damage if we are wrong.
> 
> It seems to me (and I can see the flames coming...) that the damage
> caused to the fetus is greater, if abortion is allowed and it turns
> out later that the fetus is human, than the damage caused to the
> mother if abortion is not allowed.
> 
> We should, therefor, not allow abortion until we can get a concensus.
-------
Nonsense.  First of all, the question is not whether the fetus is human.
Of course a human fetus is human.  What is it, a chicken?  The question
is whether the fetus is a HUMAN BEING, or only a POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING.
Second, and more important, the question of whether the fetus is
or is not a human being is not a scientific question, but a matter
of semantics.  There are no missing relevant facts which would allow
it to "turn out" later that the fetus is or is not a human being.
You state your precise definition of the term HUMAN BEING, and I will
tell you RIGHT NOW whether or not the fetus is a human being according
to your definition.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan