From: steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com>
--- 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.
In this debate the most commonly heard voices are all "extreme". *Extreme
minority* positions can be marginalized without violating NPOV, but when
those extreme voices represent a significant number of people (in this case
numbering in the millions), their view must be presented as well.
Referring to a "human fetus" as
"human" doesnt appear
to be controversial
Referring to it as "a human fetus" (as opposed to, say, "a chimpanzee
fetus") is non-controversial. Referring to is a "a human", quite obviously
is.
Jay.