home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!ray
- From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
- Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
- Message-ID: <1992Nov21.073246.6630@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
- References: <1992Nov16.180147.15583@ncsa.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov17.060234.6206@netcom.com> <1egsvmINNgrt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:32:46 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
- > ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
- >#How are we going to decide what is a human being and what isn't? You
- >#assume that anything concieved of people is a person, but that
- >#assumption has been shown to be largely arbitrary. If I define as
- >#human anything warm blooded, then your argument could just as well be
- >#used to argue for equal rights for turkeys (and just in time, too!).
- >
- >Every definition has been shown to be largely arbitrary. Your argument is
- >equally circular, and equally worthless. It could be used, and has been, to
- >justify the worst atrocities in living memory. Which is worse, letting
- >turkeys in - or leaving people out?
-
- Your assuming (without suitable justification) that any people are
- being left out.
-
- So then, we're left with two equally worthless arguments. You want to
- make the set larger than do I. Who's right?
-
- Maybe we'll have to use some other method of arriving at a concensus.
- How about one that produces the greatest good while avoiding the
- majority of the evils?
-
- --
- Ray Fischer "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
- ray@netcom.com than lies." -- Friedrich Nietszsche
-