Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Dividing Lines
Message-ID: <278@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 12:16:16 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.278
Posted: Mon Jan 28 12:16:16 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jan-85 01:30:07 EST
References: <150@spp1.UUCP> <252@scgvaxd.UUCP> <342@scc.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 19
Summary: 

In article <342@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes:
>	It is nonsense to think that we could give a fetus 
>the same status as someone that has already been born.  The dividing
>line is not fuzzy at all.  The logical consequences of giving
>fetuses the same status as the rest of us are absurd.
>

	My statement about the arbitrariness of dividing lines was
from a *biological* point of view, and is quite correct from that
point of view.  From a legal/practical point of view I agree completely,
it is absurd to give an unborn fetus full human rights, just as it is
absurd to give a young child full adult rights.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
 or
quad1!psivax!friesen