Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com>
>> Not after it is born. The law protects born humans.... 
>
>But that's clearly illogical.

That you refuse to accept it does not make it "illogical".

>  What is there about
>being born which makes a human being any more 
>worthy of human rights?

You're assuming your conclusion.  Of course your question is illogical
if you assume the false premise that a fetus is a human being.  It
doesn't get rights because it isn't a human being.

>  Fetuses are clearly human
>being BEFORE BIRTH,

Now you're resorting to your usual lying.  As has been demonstrated
countless times, a human being has been born.

> so why don't we assign the 
>same rights to them as to newborn infants?

The right to live in another person's body?  The right to cause pain 
and injury?  The right to threaten someone's life and well-being?

While you may think that you have such rights over women, the reality
is that such rights exist for nobody.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net