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: <407@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 04:17:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.407
Posted: Thu Aug  1 04:17:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 09:39:08 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 22

> Why do I bother?  Beats me.  You're obviously not willing to listen to
> statements of fact of any sort, only statements that agree with your
> predefined position.  You should go into pompous assertion as a career,
> you do it so well.  (Falsehood?)

Let's be blunt.  The claim that "the fetus is not alive" goes against
everything that modern biology tells us.  If you expect any of us to
believe that you are right and modern biology is wrong, you had better
damn well give some reasons other than "I say it's so and if you don't
agree then you have a closed mind".  The methods which science uses to
reach its conclusions are nothing if not open-minded.

The only 'support' you have given for your assertion so far is the claim
that the fetus is a parasite.  If false, this claim has no bearing on the
main assertion.  If true, it falsifies your main assertion -- a parasite
is a LIVING organism.

Now you might be able to get a lively debate started on whether viruses are
alive or not.  But I suspect that debate belongs in a different newsgroup.

                                        -- Thomas Newton
                                           Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA