Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxq.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxq!ken
From: ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Legal question of anti-abortionists
Message-ID: <813@ihuxq.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Mar-84 19:44:19 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxq.813
Posted: Sat Mar 31 19:44:19 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Apr-84 07:45:52 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 28

--
If a fetus is a human at the moment of conception, or sufficiently
human that its rights supersede those of its host, then where do
its legal rights stop?  Should anyone conceived in the USA have the
right to citizenship?  Civil suit?  Class action?  Inheritance?
Think about it.  Even household pets have some legal standing.
There are two questions, too:  Do you have full American rights after
you're born because you *WERE* a fetus in the US?  Do you have these
rights while you *ARE* said fetus?

You pro-lifers love to argue that killing fetuses leads to Adolph
Hitler, so let's turn some of this "leads to" stuff around.
If the act of being born is legally irrelevant, then you can't be
arbitrary about the rights of these (what do you call them?)
"unborn children". 

There are laws about child abuse, and extending them, as we'll have to
do, implies that pregnant women must be prohibited from doing anything
that would harm their fetuses.  So, I must conclude that your failure
to point out such proscriptions in your anti-abortion agitation is a
political ploy, at the expense of the fetus no less.  For shame!
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******    31 Mar 84 [11 Germinal An CXCII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7261     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken   *** ***