From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:52:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <17715@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <1992Apr7.062635.4717@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.E
>DU
>
>Why would I doubt the words of scholars when
>a) I can't find fault with their logic, b) it works, and c) their
>cumalative knowledge is a hell of a lot more than mine. I do not FOLLOW
>their logic, and I am not BRAINWASHED as you suggest, but I do seek
>guidance from their wisdom. Try it sometime...

What scholars? priests? While their work might be scholarly in some
respect, it definitely is self serving in others, seeking to uphold
the religion at all costs. If something deviates from church doctrine,
they either repress it or minimize its effects on the religion, so they
may accomodate it.

> If you smashed me in
>the face, I would royally kick your butt. But, that's beside the point.
>I can assure you that I am not brainwashed, but a sentient logical
>being. I am presently in my honors studies of Physics, so I have been

First off, I said a fact. This is figurative speech (you really shouldn't
take obviously colorful speech intended to attract your attention so
personally :) indicating that if a fact stared you in the face (more 
figurative speech) you wouldn't recognize it. Your statement really 
proves the point.

As for royaly kicking my butt, my, doesn't that sound like a macho response.
(remember what I said about macho?) Being in Honors studies of Physics
only indicates that your hardware works, it does not imply that the
software is not faulty. You have yet to prove that you are either logical
or not brainwashed.

Here are some questions.

1)Prove, logically and without resorting to religious dogma, that the
parasitic life form created by conception is a human being in any sense
other than genetic before the eigth week, seventh month, or birth.
(obviously, if you can prove it at 8 weeks, there is no reason to prove
the rest)

2)If, conception begins life, why are we not gods, since the sperm and
egg are not life forms (per welch)? Are we not creating life from dead
things (those that are not alive must be dead).

2a)If you disagree with the premise that the sperm and egg are not alive,
then why not force sperm to mate with every possible egg, since failure
to do so would end a life. As for that matter, why not prevent their
joining since that would destroy two lives to form a single life?

3)With the expected failure to answer question 1), why should there be any
problem with terminating the parasitic life form in the uterus? [realize
that a zygote/embryo/fetus qualifies in every way as a parasite, taking
sustenance from the host and defecating in the host, without providing
any benefits, and gradually weakening the host, with death possible
before expulsion]

These may seem to be absurd to some, but must seriously be asked of
you, since you have not logically (or at all) addressed any of these
issues.

Ron