Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-bill.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!gcc-bill!bird
From: bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: ancients predict usenet
Message-ID: <332@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 17:59:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: gcc-bill.332
Posted: Thu Sep 26 17:59:58 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 08:23:18 EDT
References: <811@gitpyr.UUCP>
Reply-To: bird@gcc-bill.UUCP (Brian Wells)
Distribution: net
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <811@gitpyr.UUCP> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes:
>Brian Wells writes:
>>  Sure you could argue a line of demarcation at birth
>>but I don't think it is a firm and immovable as a line at conception.
>[go on down a little]
>>	My daughter was born six weeks
>>early and she certainly looks human.  According to all the classes and books
>>I have had, she has looked human for a few months now even though she has
>>been in the womb.  If you had something else in mind, please explain.
>
>Do you have me and Rich Rosen mixed up? I never said abortions should be
>legal anytime close to birth. They aren't now, and I certain never said they
>should be!

	In your original posting, you mentioned that people could argue
demarcation at birth, but that it would be arbitrary.  My intention was to
flow with that idea.  I did not mean to imply that you held that particular
position.  
	I am curious though, why you included here the passage about my
daughter while choosing to edit out the statement you had made prior to that
about fetuses having no recognizably human features?  I am still wondering 
what you had meant by that statement.

							Brian Wells


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com