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)