
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
Of course, the definition of human-hood would have to be established first, and that is what the crux of the argument is in the first place, isn't it?
No, that's the phony, question-begging "crux" that anti-abortionists usually steer for, however. It presumes that once something can be declared "human" it's life becomes the obligation of the rest of society to preserve.
But especially fundies, who loudly proclaim themselves to be "pro-life", don't seem to adhere to this. As but one poignant example, good ol' Saint Paul says "If a man will not work, he shall not eat". Surely Paul knew he was talking about live human beings and yet he takes the smug attitude that he would contently see them die of starvation if they can't earn their keep.
Now, as an atheist, you might have better standards.
But ultimately, by definition, no abortion can ever involving killing a pre-born child older than 9 months. The issue is really whether society should categorically say that the interests of an entity less than 9 months old should ever outweigh the interests of one or both adult parents.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |