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