From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:28:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.235322.26218@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>If you would support your assertion that a 8 week fetus is a baby, you might
>>have a point. This has not been done.
>>You assert, without any support at all, that a 'fetus' (no age given) is a baby
>>Do you believe that after fertilization, in the early stages of mitosis, that
>>this clump of say 16 cells is a person: a baby?
>
>Of course I'm assuming this.  Isn't that what the issue is all about?
>

Yes, I see you are assuming this. Please support your assumption that a clump
of 16 cells, then, is indeed a baby. If you use the potentiality argument, then
please indicate why any sperm/egg pair are not also protected under the
law.


>>>>Selfish? Yes. It is the woman's self who is carrying this non-thinking
>>>>piece of fetal tissue. If she doesn't want to be carrying it in her*self*,
>>>>she has the right (under law:status quo) to have it remove from her*self*.
>>>
>>>More simpleness for you:  Legal does NOT equal Right.
>
>>Of course not. I didn't say legal DID equal right. I said "she has the right
>>under law, which is currently the status quo to have an abortion." If you
>>are trying to change the status quo, you need to do more for your argument
>>then just reassert your point over and over without support.
>
>Proving something to YOU won't change any status quo.  Fortunately our
>Supreme Court now more closely reflects the nation's beliefs.  That will
>hopefully be the catalyst for change. 
> 

I alone am not the status quo.  The supreme court was not chosen by popular
vote. They were installed by a single man that I did not vote for.

Ergo, they do not necessarily represent the nation's beliefs.


>>>>You are saying she is selfish because she doesn't want someone around to 
>>>>decide what she should do with herself?
>>>
>>>No.  Listen please.  It is selfish to murder someone because they are
>>>inconveniencing you.
>
>>You have oversimplified all abortions to occur because of inconvenience. 
>>Not only is this another cheap shot, but it is incorrect.
>
>More slop arguement.  I NEVER said ALL abortions were a matter of
>inconvenience.  It's the only way you have to fight.

I am not fighting. I erred with the word all.

>
>>And if you would support your reasserted assertion that an 8 week fetus is 
>>a "someone", and that it is murder, we will gladly listen.
>
>Support the idea that it's NOT.

You have the burden of proof. But here.

Would you have a problem disconnecting a person who had their brain smashed
out on the highway from lifesupport? I personally would have no problem
doing that. The machinery that would hold their 'person' (that being their
brain) has been destroyed.

Now, early enough, a fetus doesn't *have* *any* brain, let alone one that
works. It cannot be a person if it does not have a brain. It is technically
brain dead.

Now support your assertion.
-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:515 talk.abortion:13864