Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: buckley@reed.UUCP (Ken Buckley)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Smoking and Abortion
Message-ID: <15297@reed.UUCP>
Date: 7 Aug 90 21:02:10 GMT
References: <1895@apctrc.UUCP>
Reply-To: buckley@reed.UUCP (Ken Buckley)
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR
Lines: 15
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

In article <1895@apctrc.UUCP> "Randall R. Appleton" <uunet!apctrc!crx34!zrra07@ncar.ucar.EDU> writes:
>It is well known (outside of Jessie Helm's little mind) that smoking
>is bad for unborn babies.  Therefore, I ask the folloing question: If
>one is pro-life, and wants legislation to keep these unborn babies
>from being murdered, should one also want legislation to keep these
>same babies from the life-long harm that pre-natal smoking can cause?

Yes. Several "guerilla lawyers" have brought similar suits in states
where laws state that "life begins at conception." E.g. they have sued
to have a pregnant woman released from prison because her fetus is
unlawfully imprisoned. Another suit claimed that a man who was 20
years and 4 months old at a certain time was actually 21 years old,
counting from his date of conception, and so should have been allowed
in a bar or some such thing.
--Ken Buckley