Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!homxa!wine
From: wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :->
Message-ID: <1064@homxa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 16:51:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: homxa.1064
Posted: Wed Jul 31 16:51:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 00:29:54 EDT
References: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1012@noscvax.UUCP> <915@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <427@mit-vax.UUCP>, <1041@cbsck.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 14

Paul Dubuc writes,

>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"?

Come on, who ever said that laws in the US are logically consistant?
Anyhow, I don't see the
logical connection between the antecedent and the subsquent in Paul's
sentence.  The laws *do* make a distinction between brain-dead human beings
and healthy ones.

                         Jim Gordon, Jr.