Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!cjk
From: cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: the 'pro-life' fallacy, plus answer to Ken
Message-ID: <573@ccice2.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Jan-85 15:22:38 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice2.573
Posted: Sun Jan 27 15:22:38 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 05:58:23 EST
References: <629@wucs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 49

> [whose side am I on, anyway?]
> From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
> > 1.  A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens.  If this is in
> >     dispute, examine the genetic makeup.
> > 2.  [It's] a separate individual.
> > 3.  All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right
> >     to live.  Other rights are subordinate to this one.
> > 4.  Since the fetus is a human individual, it has the right to live,
> 
> Step 4 does not follow unless "human" in 3 is interpreted as "member
> of the species homo sapiens."  But in that case, 3 is -- to say the
> least -- not intuitively obvious.  (Why should species membership have
> any bearing on rights?)  In fact, it begs the question.
> 
> From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP ("Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery)
> > Why is the distinction between doing harm and refusing aid
> > irrelevant?  Why do you think the two are [morally -pvt] the same?
> 
> Because the results are the same, and they're what count.
> 
> 				--the ever-unpopular THIRD side,
> 				Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
> (Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.)

Paul.

This doesn't fool me.  Don't think because you are using a different
system, I won't be able to sniff out your writing.

> Step 4 does not follow unless "human" in 3 is interpreted as "member
> of the species homo sapiens." 

Most humans I know are members of the species Homo sapiens.

> But in that case, 3 is -- to say the
> least -- not intuitively obvious.  
> > 3.  All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right
> >     to live.  Other rights are subordinate to this one.

That's right, your right of freedom of speech is definitely not
subordinate to your right to remain alive.  You could continue writing
stuff like this after you were dead.

> (Why should species membership have
> any bearing on rights?)  In fact, it begs the question.

In your case it should not.
-- 
Peaceful Botanist