Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!homxa!wine
From: wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Rosensoap
Message-ID: <1034@homxa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 19:06:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: homxa.1034
Posted: Tue Jul 16 19:06:45 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 04:29:02 EDT
References: <388@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 19

>> Human beings are alive.  Living organisms of OUR species, whose rights we
>> respect.  Fetuses (funny you forgot to bring them up) are not.

Thomas Newton writes:

>You're claiming that for a person to be a human being, his/her rights must be
>respected by the society in which s/he lives?  By this definition, blacks in
>the Old South, Jews in Nazi Germany, and dissidents in the Soviet Union are
>not human beings.

	This is one of the most ridiculous interpretations of a
sentence I have heard in a while.  The sentence being referred to is
not very precise as it assumes that everyone respects the life of
'living organisms of OUR species', but it certainly does not imply
that only those whose lives are respected are human beings.  Let's not
use misinterpretations and out-of-context quotes to prove that pro-choice
arguments are incorrect.
 
        Jim Gordon, Jr (@AT&T Bell Laboratories, W. Long Branch)