--- JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course it is. Whether or not a fetus is
"human",
or at what point it
becomes "human", is at the heart of the abortion
debate. Stating the
anti-abortion/pro-life position as fact is the
antithesis of NPOV.
NOT HUMAN: See, you say that, and Meelar has said
that, but others, Anthere, Slimvirgin, etc. disagree.
Mav even extended that to human cells, though in
general he sought to complicate matters. ANY POSITION
=/= NPOV : This is true, but using the FES example
again, extreme claims can be marginalised without
violating NPOV.
Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear
to be controversial, even though you and Meelar think
that such a reference would be an endorsement of a
view.
Again, this isnt merely for sake of discussion, as the
point was to seek some input regarding how to deal
with the debate on certain articles. I know that my
reasoning can be hard to follow for some of you, but
if the debate is exclusively, binary then the "sides"
are reprented by *absolutist* (i.e. *impractical*)
extremes. Thats not NPOV either, as it ignores the
fact that most people dont subscribe to the extremes
of "all life" or "all choice." Whatever can be
mutually agreed upon can be said to be something like
consensus, and therefore the basis for more NPOV
writing.
But if, as some claim (you, Meelar) that there isnt
even an agreement regarding the basic notion that a
fetus at 8.9 months is a "human" or "life" or "human
life", then there's no basis for consensus, hence NPOV
writing. That's not the case, fortunately, as most
seem to agree that neither extreme view is correct
--that its not simply a binary issue (as many claim it
should be represented) but its a bell curve in which
the split/peak seems to be some particular gestational
age--perhaps related to viability or not.
SV
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com