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!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!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: <953@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 18:04:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.953
Posted: Mon Jul 22 18:04:20 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Jul-85 19:42:10 EDT
References: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1012@noscvax.UUCP> <915@umcp-cs.UUCP> <427@mit-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 13
Summary: But that's the point...

In article <427@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes:
>>>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.
>
>That's not what the writer said. He said the could be "treated"
>differently. That merely implies a different set of rights. Right to
>life is a specific case.

But it's the most interesting case for this newsgroup.