Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: question is not irrelevant
Message-ID: <2593@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 13:19:28 EST
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2593
Posted: Mon Mar 12 13:19:28 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 08:34:37 EST
References: <217@ihnp1.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 35


Well, Mike, your qeustion was indeed irrevelant.

Your summation of my answer isn't far wrong.
You state quite clearly the point at which a fetus
becomes a human (at least according to me, except for
the use of the maliciously emotional "proves" in the statement,
a small dishonesty on your part, as far as I'm concerned).  You then ask when a
fetus becomes human according to me.  I suspect that you
are trying to set me up for another falacious argument,
and I'm geting sick of it.

Please read your own article to find the answer to your question.
You answered it quite nicely.

I guess I should expect you to use deliberate emotional
tricks, and I should expect you to try to mislead the
reader into believing that I haven't answered your
question when you've even stated the answer yourself,
but I don't know why I should have to deal with such
an unreasonable method of debate.  

If you can state my position for yourself, sir, then
why do you have to ask again what the position is?


Please, as usual, leave religious belief out of the discussion,
since that's a matter of faith, and you have neither the right nor
the permission to make your faith mine.
-- 
TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--
HUG YOUR OWN TODAY !
(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj