🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1868@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
>
>  The whole point is, we don't *know* this. The fact that it is a subject
>of such extensive debate, with large numbers of people (including some
>quite well-respected people on both sides) involved is proof of that.
>One is only advocation murder if one is advocating killing something that
>one believes is a human being. Otherwise all I'm doing is advocating 
>what someone *else* considers to be murder. Talking about "reality" is
>meaningless when we don't even know what "reality" is. All I'm saying is that
>each person should have the freedom to determine that for themself, without
>having someone else's opinion forced upon them.
>
No. talking about reality is not meaningless.  You do not get to determine
what is reality for yourself.  For instance, if person X and person Y
each make a decison about abortion and X sincerely believes that her fetus
is not a human being and Y sincerely believes that her fetus is it does
not follow that X's is not a human being and Y's is on the basis of their
belief.  It follows that either X or Y are making a mistake.

I wonder why this is not obvious.  If I made similar claims about Blacks
(Everyone should have the freedom to determine for themselves whether or
not a Black is a human being, without having someone else's opinion forced
upon them) nobody would let it stand.  I realise that it is easier to
prove that a Black is a human being than a fetus is, but the problem is
exactly the same sort -- what is the nature of a human being?  Does X
have this nature?

-- 
Laura Creighton		
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa