--- JAY JG jayjg@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