Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbsck.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!pmd
From: pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :->
Message-ID: <1041@cbsck.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 16:17:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbsck.1041
Posted: Mon Jul 29 16:17:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 02:52:20 EDT
References: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1012@noscvax.UUCP> <915@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <427@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 23

>>>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. [Torek]

>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.  [Charles Forsythe]

The right to life is not just a specific case.  It underlies all other
rights.  What other human right means anything without it?

Also,  the original writer did mean that "treated" differently includes
the protection (or lack thereof) of the lives of certain groups of humans
(according to how we classify them).   What would be the point with regard
to abortion otherwise?  Torek's point is well taken.  If calling a human
"fetus" or "infant" means the former has no right to live and the latter does,
what logically prevents anyone from from making the same distinction between
"teenagers" and "adults"?

Paul Dubuc