Molloy went on to respond to the sentence:
"A fetus is a human.".
His response was redundant in that he used arguments already well known in the E-prime issue. He did not respond to my point that someone could just as easily say:
"A fetus has the same rights as a human.",
my obvious point being that by shifting to E-prime, the argument has not changed very much, hardly at all. So, again, the value of advocating E-prime seems questionable.
There, that was all in E-prime... Woops! Darn!