Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!caip!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!mberkley
From: mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Best for Others?
Message-ID: <2621@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 14:43:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2621
Posted: Mon Oct  6 14:43:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:37:20 EDT
References: <2710@burdvax.UUCP> <5833@ut-sally.UUCP> <311@isieng.UUCP> <51@oliveb.UUCP> <2617@watdcsu.UUCP> <649@houem.UUCP>
Reply-To: mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 17
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:438 talk.abortion:95

In article <649@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
>Second, the fetus is not legally a
>"person," for reasons that have been gone over before in this
>newsgroup, so the state need not concern itself with protecting it. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe this is true in a legal sense, but not morally.  I'm
talking about morality in society, not legality.  Morally, you
can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."

The view of pro-choice is that an unborn baby is not a person,
the view of pro-life is that the unborn baby is a person.
(This states the obvious, but you seem to need to hear it.)

Hopefully forums like this will lead to the unborn baby being
accorded the rights of a person in the law's eyes as well.

Mike Berkley