From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 06:20:59 GMT

In article <C03Fn3.H4t@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul "Monkey
boy" Lebow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.050706.9681@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>> In article <C01nIB.1n1@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul "Monkey
Boy" Lebow) 
>writes:
>
>
>> >I see you like the game too.  Try this:  A fetus is a state of 
>> >childhood, as is neonate, infant, toddler, prepubescent, etc., etc.
>> >
>
>
>> No Paul, a fetus is a state of development that the fertilized egg
>> goes through before it can become a child.
>
>I still don't know why you insist that the common usage of the word "child" is a forbidden utterance from the lips of a pro-abort.  Just kidding, I do know why - keep those undecideds distracted!  My Webster's 9th lists the "unborn" in the first definition of "child".  I know, Merriam-Webster is run by a bunch of commie-mouth-foaming fetus-freaks.
>
Dictionary definitions abound for all sides. I tend to go by the ones
I get out of embryology, obstetric, and neonatology texts. Since we're
dealing with a medical and personal issue, the medical definitions do
seem to be in order.

>
>> >Isn't it curios that a 'wanted' unborn child will almost always be 
>> >referred to as 'baby' by the expectant mother, but the soon to aborted 
>> >child get's labelled 'fetus'?  So yes, of course you are right Mark, 
>> >abortions only kill 'fetuses' since if they were children they would have 
>> >been born.  Now I see your logic!
>
>> The expectant mother is not involved in a debate,
>> so I couldnt' care less if she uses the correct terminology.
>
>(Oh Great.  This should go over well with that sweet misanthrope, Muriel.)
>
Since I suspect Muriel is capable of reading the un-butchered words
that I originally posted, I have no worries on this matter.

>
>>  But it is nice to see you admit that I am correct. 
>
>I do?  
>
You did. Of course, you deleted it, and will now deny it. Typical of
what we expect from you monkey boy

>>Does this mean you will also be retracting your inccorect claim that more
> > women die of abortions now then when abortions were illegal?
>
>You haven't proven that untrue yet, Mark.  I wasn't the one who first claimed that if abortion is made illegal women will begin to die in droves.  No, this is a common pro-abort line.  There is not a single bit of proof that this will be the case.  Show me.
>
It has been shown, many times. You've just managed to ignore it. Are
you going to claim (like PHoney) that your server is dead and not
receiving the articles? Or are you goin to just ignore the facts
presented?

BTW Monkey boy. Learn how to use an editor. It will keep your lines
from being broken in mid-word. This will keep them legible. I have no
hope thta they will ever become intelligable, but legible will be a
nice start.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54006 alt.abortion.inequity:6274