In a message dated 5/18/2005 10:12:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 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. The line does shift because of technical (medical) advances. That is why this problem has become so vexing. Modern medicine has exposed the falicy of our intuitive notions of what it means to be human. (Analogy - our common sense perceptions of the world are completely overturned by relativity and quantum physics. Our brains evolved in a situation where these "realities" do not impede on our lives. So we can afford to accept these theories without worrying about their effects on our daily lives. But here the analogy breaks down because our intuitive notions about when someone becomes human constatntly runs into reatlity.(at birth in the past; modern science has shown us that la human is formed at inception. But that embryo lacks many -most- of the features that traditionally define human beings are absent) > > 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. > I have no arguement with this unless the mother's health is at risk _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
