Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccsu3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
From: kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re:
Message-ID: <1800@sdccsu3.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-May-84 23:54:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdccsu3.1800
Posted: Fri May  4 23:54:55 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 6-May-84 01:03:51 EDT
References: <843@psuvm.UUCP>, <1783@sdccsu3.UUCP>, <6744@gatech.UUCP>
Organization: Hacker's Haven, U.C. San Diego
Lines: 46

[]

From: ..gatech!owens (Gerald R. Owens)

Me: (Following an example about the creation of something ruining two already
     existing somethings)

	I could say the same for a fetus.  No matter how valuable or worthful
	an object is, if it's creation will ruin the existances of two already 
	existing objects, it shouldn't come to be.

Gerald:
> An interesting principle, but the fetus already exists, so it must be that
> it's CONTINUED existance will eventually ruin the existances of two others.

No, you misunderstand the example.  The pot isn't FINISHED yet, it's not a
pot.  It's a potus (!).  As a potus it doesn't really do that much damage
to the existance of the pots; it's coming into completion is the deadly stage.

Ie following the example, a fetus by itself isn't much trouble to either of
the parents.  But a maturing baby is.  Once born, it requires external care;
it no longer can be automatically taken care of by the mothers innards.
*That*, plus the temporary disabling of the mother and the nuturing parent(s)
is the danger.

So...  Getting back to the example, the continued existance of the fetus is
fine.  If it stayed a fetus there wouldn't be much of a problem.  It's the
baby's existance that "will eventually ruin the existancer of two others."

Ok?

> Imagine! it's now open season on:
> 
>       1.  DEA agents, policemen, juries, and judges, whose existances threaten
> 	       to ruin the lives of many people.
>       2.  Witnesses whose testimony would ruin the lives and businesses
> 	       of the ones they tesify against (organized crime, please note).
>       3.  IRS agents, whose preditations are already well known. (however,
>                their humanity is questioned by many already :-)

Now, now, now...  Don't make fun of someone's (?) serious (??) article (???) !!

				   Kenn the Kenf
				...!sdcsvax!kenn
				...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192
				...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn