Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!steven
From: steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: What makes us human?
Message-ID: <1059@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-May-84 06:17:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: qubix.1059
Posted: Wed May  2 06:17:25 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 03:46:13 EDT
References: <1035@qubix.UUCP>, <175@hercules.UUCP>
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 32



>  Steven Maurer states in a previous article that the question of when a fetus
>  becomes a human being "has been pretty clearly established."  If Mr. Maurer
>  means that this question has been established as the one on which the entire
>  abortion debate should be based, then I heartily agree with him.  If, on the
>  other hand, he means that the answer to this question is clearly established,
>  I couldn't disagree more.


	This is what the author was talking about:

>>  I think that is has been pretty well estabilshed, that killing
>>  humans in this country should be illegal.   Therefore, the real
>>  question of abortion is not "should abortion be legal?", or "are
>>  fetuses human?", but rather "when does an unborn infant become a 
>>  human?".  This question, I believe, has been pretty clearly established.

    ( the article then goes on to discuss the various criteria for
    humanity that various people have )


    Believe me that when I say that a "question has been established", I
    do not mean the "answer has been established".   If I had thought so,
    no doubt I would have said so.

    Now my only question is, why don't people read an entire
    article before responding?

    Steven Maurer