Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpm!cher
From: cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :->
Message-ID: <360@ihlpm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 10:06:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpm.360
Posted: Tue Jul 23 10:06:07 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 17:08:09 EDT
References: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1012@noscvax.UUCP> <915@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 21
Xref: tektronix net.abortion:01821 

> 
> 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.

But of course you do not give equal status even to these two
(despite of the fact that "teenager" and "adult" actually
overlap a lot more then "fetus" and "person" notions). 
As for smaller kids, they don't have too many rights -
their old folks can do all kinds of nasty things to them:
e.g. bring them up as communists or anti-abortionists!!

Someone some time ago suggested that for fetuses possibility to 
hatch (develop) could be seen not as automatic right, but
as an option of their parents (mother). I have yet to see
a good refutation of that idea...

> 				--Paul V Torek, master icon claster

			Mike Cherepov
				"Master Blaster runs the Bartertown"