Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gatech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!gatech!owens
From: owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Definitions
Message-ID: <6743@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-May-84 09:45:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.6743
Posted: Wed May  2 09:45:25 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 04:59:57 EDT
References: <19450@wivax.UUCP>, <1781@sdccsu3.UUCP>
Organization: Georgia Tech School of ICS, Atlanta
Lines: 55

From Kenn:

 > > Ok, What ARE the circumstances and differences between a fetus, criminals,
 > > children and olderfolks that allows criminals to be executed, murderers
 > > of children and olderfolks to be executed, and a fetus to be killed
 > > by the private decision of another person?  We know that they are similar,
 > > i.e. alive, so how are they significantly different to merit such
 > > different treatment?  I just want to have them stated, in the open, so
 > > that if any laws are or are not going to be changed, then they'll be based
 > > on something solid

>Solid what?  The greatest limitation to this newsgroup is that we all have
>different definitions on everythig!  Something solid, huh?  Solid what?
>Solid BS that you or five million other netters will strike down as being
>only a biological definition and others as it being a religios def. and
>others as ultiltarian or pragmatic or everything-else-under-the-sun-ic!
>You won't get anything very solid to work with here.  The world is what the 
>people in it think it is.  If you want the people of the world to conclude 
>things with you, you have to argue with them to THEIR thinking.

That's why I asked.  You pretended to know that the entities mentioned
above were different, so I asked what you thought the significant differences
were.

>Nobody
>can just pick a def and say, "this is it."  Thus most defs. suggested to
>you will be flamed by someone.

Obviously.  That's why the angle of working from differences might be
more useful.  Since there is agreement that SOME entities are human, and that
the fetus is just one stage in the life cycle of Homo Sapiens (?), and that
the allegation is that the fetus isn't human, then there must be something
different between those entities and the fetus that determines humanness.

>Why don't you try not to cop out on a
>"no solid evidence" plea and argue in some abstract terms?  Abstraction
>is nice because it can fit into everyone's way of thinking.  Now, answer
>my previous article!

>				   Kenn the Kenf

I see no reason to "cop out", mainly because the alleged significant
differences that people do have and the fetus does not (or vice versa)
that qualifies the former to be humans and the fetus as not human have
not been stated.  The pro-life people claim that no such significant
differences exist.  You seem to know of one or more such differences
that would invalidate such a claim, and I asked you since I'm not sure that
I, or they, covered all the possibilities.  So how can I answer your
previous article if you know what that difference is, but I don't,
and you won't tell me?

					Gerald Owens
					Owens@gatech

p.s.  If anyone else can tell me, please do so.