Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ritcv.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!spw2562 From: spw2562@ritcv.UUCP () Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re*2: final argument against Message-ID: <1263@ritcv.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 16:21:18 EDT Article-I.D.: ritcv.1263 Posted: Mon Sep 17 16:21:18 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:26:27 EDT References: <929@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1256@ritcv.UUCP>, <936@ut-ngp.UUCP> Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY Lines: 21 > That is correct. The robber is wholly resposible for his actions; > you are responsible for none of them. You entirely miss the point. If you don't play with, fire you won't get burned. > Yes, dammit, it CAN happen by accident. There is a small but non-zero > propability of pregnancy even when several birth-control methods are > used simultaneously. What does this have to do with abortion anyway? > Why is a fetus a special kind of person, in that it is to be allowed to > use the property of its mother against her will? Is not the fetus > analogous to your robber? Inviting the robber is analogous to the woman inviting the man. Do you see the point yet? And as far as the woman's will, if she takes the risk, she should be willing to accept the consequences. Steve Wall ...ritcv!ritvp!spw2562