From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:10:43 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <C0CqD4.5t5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
|> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|> >|> In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> >Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
|> >|> >dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
|> >|>
|> >|> If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
|> >|> I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
|> >|> certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
|> >|> You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
|> >|> difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
|> >|> *another persons* body.
|> >|> Try not to post without engaging yoru brain.
|> 
|> >If Patricia Ireland wants to abort her own body, I would not care, nor would
|> >I do anything to stop her. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
|> >certainly agree that she should be allowed to abort herself if she wishes.
|> >You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
|> >difference between what you do to your *own* body, and what is done to
|> >*another persons* body.
|> >Try not to post without engaging yoru brain, or at least your spelling checker.
|> 
|> I have to smile, that was very cute.  Unfortunately, it fails because the
|> unborn (especially those that are at a point in development where abortions
|> are not uncommon) are *not* "people".  You see, I am a person; Mark Cochran is
|> a person; you are a person.  How can you tell?  Because we are having this
|> silly argument, that's how.  Only people are capable of such things.  Non-
|> people are not.  The unborn are not capable of anything even close to an
|> argument, or any other conversation or meaningful communication, and thus are
|> not people.  The unborn are not capable of deciding for themselves as they can
|> not even comprehend what is taking place.

Talk about failing logic.  If a man kills his wife while she is asleep, is he
not guilty of murder because she was not able to debate the issue with him?  If
I kill a Frenchman, am I not guilty of murder because he couldn't speak English
to meaningfully communicate with me?  If a person were comatose, and the doctor
knew for certain that she would revive in nine months, would it not be
unethical to disconnect her from the respirator, regardless of the expense or
whether her family wanted her or not?  I submit to you that an X week old fetus
is capable of reacting negatively to painful stimuli, and is thus capable of
communication regarding it.  And since when do only people's lives deserve
respect?  If I run a live cat through a wood chipper, I'm breaking the law
against cruelty to animals.

|> There is also a difference between chosing to abort an unborn child inside you
|> and chosing to abort an unborn child somewhere else, but I don't expect you
|> to grasp that concept either.

Try me.  What is the difference from the child's perspective?  Human history
has a long and glorious tradition of advocacy on behalf of the defenseless.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion