Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!amd!vecpyr!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
From: pwk@ccice2.UUCP (THE PALE AVENGER)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: -30-
Message-ID: <697@ccice2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Nov-85 17:34:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice2.697
Posted: Mon Nov 18 17:34:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 04:19:13 EST
References: <2370@ukma.UUCP>
Reply-To: pwk@ccice2.UUCP (THE PALE AVENGER)
Distribution: na
Organization: POOR but I'm trying to improve :-)
Lines: 47

In article <2370@ukma.UUCP> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes:

>	You have to consider the other side also.  You may be
>	wrong.

I always consider I may be wrong. (It says so in my signature :-)

>	There is no way to prove that aborting a three month old fetus
>	is killing a human being.

This is so easy to prove (at least from a biological perspective)
its a joke.  To say that killing something is killing a human being
you need to prove two things, 1) that the thing is a human being and
2) that it is alive.

1)	There is only one real definition of what a human being is
and that is a member of the genus homo sapiens.  There have been
over the years many other complex definitions presented, but
none that would impress a biologist and I prefer to listen to
an expert.  Determining if a fetus is homo sapiens is just a
matter of counting chromosomes.  A fetus has 46 and will have
differences from it's "host" therefor a fetus is a distinct human
being.

2)	A fetus carries on all processes normally considered to
be evidence of life.  The Krebs cycle is proceeding normally.
Oxygen is being combined with sugar to produce energy.  Wastes
are being created and eliminated.  Therefor the fetus is alive.

That was simple wasn't it? :-)

>	Potential is not the same as actuality.

A fetus is an actuality, sperm and eggs are potential.

>	And until this is proven, I have to work under the assumption
>	that a law against abortions would be interfering with personal
>	freedoms.

Does this mean you are going to change your mind? :-)

>						Sean.

-- 
Of course I could be wrong.

siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk (Paul W. Karber)