Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf
From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: \"Words mean what I pay them to mean . . .\"
Message-ID: <472@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 12:41:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.472
Posted: Sat Jul 27 12:41:41 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 06:38:34 EDT
References: <396@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 35
Summary: 

Thomas Newton writes:
>>> What the hell does any of this have to do with the topic?
>
>Why don't you ask your good friend csdf?  He's the one who claimed that it is
>a matter of "nature" that we can't keep a two-month fetus alive outside of the
>womb today.

Hi Rich! What? Matter of nature? No. Actually, we don't have the
TECHNOLOGY to keep a two-month-old fetus alive outside the womb. What?
No, that's silly, why should we change laws based on technology we
EXPECT to be developed in the future? Later, Rich!

>Obviously, everyone doesn't believe that this applies to unborn babies or else
>there would be no abortion debate.

Actually, we we're discussing fetuses.

>And if you do believe so strongly in this
>premise, why did you spend so much time trying to convince us of a falsehood
>("the fetus is not alive") instead of addressing the main issues?

Actually, I don't remeber Rich making this assertion. You keep claiming
he does. Maybe if you listened to what Rich really said, you'd learn
something. After all, nobody here is really going to change their mind,
but becoming more enlightened about "the other side" never hurt anybody.
-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?"

Lord Fred:"Because I said I am."

Wang Zeep:"Seriously."

Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."