From: steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com
--- 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.
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.