Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Disposition of Aborted Fetuses
Message-ID: <866@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 09:31:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.866
Posted: Mon Jun 10 09:31:47 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 08:53:14 EDT
References: <855@bunker.UUCP> <863@bunker.UUCP> <160@idsvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 32

> >
> > To Don Steiny: "Fetuses are like other dead animal material" --
> > except that they aren't dead before they're put to some of
> > the uses mentioned in the article, and they aren't animal;
> > they are human.
> => Gary Samuelson
> 
> 	Humans are not animals?   Yikes!  Things have changed since
> I took biology in high-school.   Are we plants now?  Protoza?  Prions?

Why do people deliberately misinterpret others?  There are several
definitions of the word animal.  I guess I need to quote the dictionary
more often.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

	animal 1. any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living beings typically
	differing from plants in capacity for spontaneous movement and
	rapid motor response to stimulation.  2a: one of the lower animals
	as distinguished from man.  2b: Mammal. 3: A human being considered
	chiefly with regard to his physical nature. 4:  Animality.

Since I said "not animal ... human" it should be obvious, even to
Don Steiny, that I had in mind a definition like 2a, above.

But how come you didn't say anything about the first part of the
statement?  About the fact that fetuses are sometimes alive when
experiments begin?  That must be why you deliberately misinterpreted
me; to divert the discussion (?) from the topic.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys