Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: \"Words mean what I pay them to mean . . .\"
Message-ID: <1283@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 18:31:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1283
Posted: Mon Jul 22 18:31:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 03:07:34 EDT
References: <393@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 55

> 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.

The genetic information in a cancerous growth is ALSO different.  That's
part of what makes it cancerous.  Arguments based on the assumption that one's
opponents are operating on the assumption that the fetus is an "outgrowth"
are flawed, because clearly no one has made that assumption.

>>> 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?

And body lice live in the "womb" of your pubic hair.  Anybody can whip up
a stupid metaphor.

>>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'.

Mr. Newton, you are truly a brilliant orator.  What the hell does any of this
have to do with the topic?  The point is that it's a woman's right to remove
things from her body that she doesn't want inside of it.  If you remove
a fetus at the point suggested and just leave it, if anti-abortionists are
right about their feeling pain, it would feel a hell of a lot of pain before
just ceasing to function.

[FORSYTHE INSULTS KEN, OF COURSE WITH GOOD REASON.]

> How incredibly persuasive.  From which school playground did you obtain these
> wonderfully logical arguments?

Apparently from the same one you attended.  Nyah nyah.  Back to the argument
at hand.
-- 
"There!  I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!"			Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr