Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :->
Message-ID: <915@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 20:40:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.915
Posted: Fri Jul 19 20:40:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 18:15:03 EDT
References: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1012@noscvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 16

In article <1012@noscvax.UUCP> powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) writes:
>As I've pointed out before, morality has nothing what-so-ever to do
>with equal protection. 

My critics are left in the dust again.  Who said it did?  I'm addressing the
equal protection issue directly.

>[...] there is absolutely nothing intrinsic about fetuses, children, 
>adults, and pets that implies they require equal protection or concern.  
>As long as there are different words for these creatures, they are
>distinct and subject to different treatment.

I.e., as long as we have the separate words "teenager" and "adult" we
can legitimately protect adults' lives and not teenagers', or vice
versa?  I don't buy it.
				--Paul V Torek, master icon claster