----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
> In a message dated 5/18/2005 3:08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in > > not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then > > that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? > > > That is the wrong formulation. Humaness is innate in the sense that it > apertains to any human fetus but it is also not present at inception. It develops > progressivley over time. There is no threshold over which a fetus crosses to > become human but clearlythere is a range of time over which it changes from > something that is potentially human to something that is human If you reread my example, I think you see that I allowed for that. My comparison was between a baby that was born two months premature and a fetus that is 3 days past due. The fetus 3 days past due is, typically, better developed than the baby born two months premature. I can understand you saying that at conception we don't have a human, at 21 we do, and somewhere in between we draw a line. But, that line should be based on the being itself, not what _we've_ done. If we can change the humanness by changing the order of actions slightly, then the humanness, or lack thereof, is not innate. So, I wasn't arguing, at this point, against all abortions....just abortions after vivacity of the fetus. Roughly speaking...that's third trimester abortions. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
