Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Dividing Lines
Message-ID: <253@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jan-85 17:35:31 EST
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.253
Posted: Fri Jan 25 17:35:31 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jan-85 05:47:07 EST
References: <150@spp1.UUCP> <252@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Distribution: net
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 12
Summary: 

In article <252@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes:
>I propose that we should consider the "fetus" a human
>being until proven otherwise!
>
>					  Dan Boskovich
>					  (New on the Net)

After posting this I realized that some may ask, "Why should we consider the
"fetus" a human being until proven otherwise, rather than visa versa???
Answer: The "fetus" at less than 10 weeks has fingers, toes, all of its
"human" organs, and brain patterns. I think it is a safe assumption that
there is a *good* chance that this "fetus" just might be a "human being".