Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: \"Words mean what I pay them to mean . . .\" Message-ID: <393@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> Date: Sun, 21-Jul-85 05:03:08 EDT Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.393 Posted: Sun Jul 21 05:03:08 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 04:23:36 EDT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 75 >> = arndt@lymph.DEC > = csdf@mit-vax.UUCP >> Rich Rosen (my buddy) claims the human fetus is a "Parasite" in the woman's >> body!!! Since the Fetus grows from a cell (the egg remember??) of the >> woman's own body (ah, gee, + the cute little sperm) HOW THE HECK CAN IT BE >> A PARASITE?? > Cancerous tumors (like the one in your brain, Ken) grow from a person's > own body. Guess what? (I hate to keep a moron in suspense for long) > They're considered PARASITIC GROWTHS. >> Is my liver a 'parasite'? Ans. It is if it 'fits' my preconceived (har >> har) view of abortion - which itself stems from a >> political/religious world view. > Fine. Have it removed. At least I won't waste my time arguing your right > to do so. I think you're both forgetting one basic fact. A fetus is quite distinct from his/her mother -- just look at the DNA. And yes, genetic information is important -- it's what makes us different from the rabbits, cats, dogs, fish, etc. and what makes each human a unique individual. Arguments based on the assumption that the fetus is a body organ/tissue outgrowth are thus rather silly. Remember, with FALSE as an assumption you can prove anything. >> Weren't Jews called Parasites Rich?? For just about the same reasons. > What? They couldn't live outside of wombs? I beg to differ... They lived in the 'womb' of society and used its resources. So society just exercised its 'right' to control its own body, and killed them. After all, surely their lives weren't worth as much as society's convenience, right? >> Rich raises the absolutely stupid idea that it's not human because it can't >> survive outside the mother's body! What trash! What evil. First, it's >> only a matter of technology that it can't survive. > No, it's a matter of nature. You just can't keep a two months old embryo > alive to the point of maturity and until you can, your argument loses. What utter bs!!! Are you claiming that before the first heavier-than-air flight, it was a law of nature that it was impossible for heavier-than-air craft to fly? Are you claiming that before the first trip to the moon there was a law of nature stating 'you can't travel from the Earth to the moon.'? And if so, who or what magically changed the laws? There is no reason to believe that the natural laws a century ago were any different from the natural laws today, or that the natural laws a century from now will be any different. So if (by an incredibly small probability) aliens landed tomorrow and gave us a 'fetal support system' machine, it would work even though it might take a while for our technology to catch up to it. I suggest that you learn the definitions of 'nature' and 'technology'. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | > Cancerous tumors (like the one in your brain, Ken) . . . | > Guess what? (I hate to keep a moron in suspense for long) | | >> The Nazis killed SUBHUMANS! | > They missed one. However, if they ever come back into power, I'll make | > sure they get your address. | | > You wouldn't know a fact if it came up and bit your genitals off. | | > You're just wimping out . . . You're just a spineless cretin. | | > As opposed to you who just makes an ass out of himself. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- How incredibly persuasive. From which school playground did you obtain these wonderfully logical arguments? -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA