From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 17:55:59 GMT

In article <72687@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Larry
>>Kevin
>>> Larry Margolis writes
>
>>> >Wrong - it is purposeful; the purpose is to terminate the pregnancy.
>
>>> The purpose is to kill the fetus to end pregnancy.
>
>>Wrong.  The *purpose* is to end the pregnancy.  Killing the fetus is a
>>side effect.
>
>Larry, other than birth, how can pregnancy end?  Abortion right?  Now
>if the fetus dies in any way shape or form, we have either a spontaneous
>abortion or an abortion.  Abortion kills the fetus.  Pregnancy is directly
>related and dependent upon the fetus.  No fetus, no pregnancy.  YOu kill the
>fetus, you end pregnancy.  You abort the fetus, you end pregnancy.
>

Yes, Kevin, all true. But the purpose is to end pregnancy. Are you calling all
those women liars as well as murderers?  You know why they went to get an
abortion more than them?

You are totally ignoring the purpose, cause and effect. And no matter what 
any of us say, you still insist women go to get an abortion to kill a fetus
while they seem to thing they went to end a pregnancy. There is a *huge*
difference, one is the purpose, the other is a result of acting on that 
purpose. If you cannot accept this, you may not be *qualified* to debate.



>>> >Banning abortion would deny human beings basic rights - the right to bodily
>>> >autonomy.  Permitting abortion doesn't deny rights to any human beings.
>>> >(Hint - a fetus is not a human being.)
>
>>> If the fetus in a human mother is not a human being,
>>> of what species is it?  It is a human being in the genetic sense.
>
>>It is of the human species, but it is not a human being.  A human being is
>>a person who has been born and is alive.  If you believe otherwise, you're
>>ignorant of the law.  Wait - I forgot, you've already proven (repeatedly)
>>that you're ignorant of the law.
>
>You are quite wrong, Larry.  You hav left out a major term.  It is called
>a human being in the genetic sense.  It is an accepted term to speak of the
>fetus sense it is not a human being in the MORAL sense (person).
>
>>> It is human.  it is a human.
>
>>It is human, but it is not a human.
>
><sigh>
>
>int a;
>for (a = 0; a < 1000000; a++)
>printf("Larry, the fetus is a human (aka Human Being in the genetic sense.");
>
>>> Unless you think otherwise, you're ignorant of biology.
>
>>I do think otherwise, which doesn't mean (by what you wrote) I'm ignorant
>>of biology.  Which probably isn't what you intended to say, proving once
>>again that you don't understand logic, either.
>
>We are discussing human being in the genetic sense.  You think that the
>fetus is outright not a human being.  By saying so, you have left your mind
>devoid of the fact that it is a human being in the genetic sense.  It may
>not be a human being in the MORAL sense, which is the only "human being"
>you want yourself to see.


But you have stated it is bad to remove both. Why argue about semantics?

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************