Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf
From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: the 'pro-life' fallacy, plus answer to Ken
Message-ID: <309@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 17:37:22 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.309
Posted: Mon Jan 28 17:37:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 19:22:28 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: The Wall Of Fog
Lines: 33

> > > 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." 

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

> > But in that case, 3 is -- to say the
> > least -- not intuitively obvious.  

> 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

Peaceful Botanist. I am afraid you have strayed from known
facts. You leap to the illogical conclusion that Paul is alive
and able to speak. An analysis of Paul's text reveals it to
be totally random as far as meaningful content.
-- 
The Watcher
seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf