From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Who Framed Baby Herman?  (Was: All Caps Implications)
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:33:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.011210.18193@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr7.185217.15334@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>
>>So basically you're saying that it is so because you believe it to be
>>so and because the church says so.
>   No... I'm saying that you haven't given the unborn fetus a chance
>to decide. Forget the church's say, forget my say, but listen to the fetus.

Um, Steve, If you've ever heard a Fetus talking to you, maybe you should
call a psychiatrist(sp?).  I mean, I was talking to Samantha today right after
her labor pains had started, and even then I couldn't hear her soon-to-be-born
child saying anything.

>You know what? You can't... So, I say it is not our position to judge the
>status of the fetus. The fact that the population is so divided on the

Sure "we" are.  I think it's fairly self-evident that a Fetus is inside of a
woman.  And, let's not be hypocritical.  If it's not "our" position to judge
the status of the fetus, then it sure as hell isn't "your" position to do
so.

>status of the fetus should be sufficient to show us we cannot end it's 
>existence. Until a unanimous decision arises that the unborn fetus

No, Steve.  It may be "sufficient to show" YOU, but it's not sufficient to
me.  Quit trying to run my MALE life, let alone the lives of the WOMEN involved
in pregnancy, ok?

>is not a sentient being with rights, then we cannot afford to abort the
          ^^^^^^^^Biology 101.  A Fetus is *NOT* sentient.  Next queston?
>fetus. Otherwise, as long as the decision is split, there are many out
>there that see it as murder.

And there are many out there who don't see it as murder.  There are many people
out there who feel that homosexuality is a perversion.  There are many out there
who feel that blacks shouldn't live in white neighborhoods.  There are many out
there who feel that they are the master of the house, and if the wife gets a
little uppity, then she deserves to be hit.
>
>Ahhh - here we go - Just what I was waiting for. A hack at the church's
>credibility. Don't bother tackling arguments and concepts, but go for
>character assasination. I'm starting to feel a bit like Clarence Thomas...
>Character assassination is one thing, but lowering an entire group 
>by it's beliefs from hundreds of years ago, and even by other individuals 
>in the past decade is pathetic. I truly thought it was beneath you.

Let me go put on my tutu, Steve, and I'll play clue-fairy for you today.

The Catholic Church claims to be the infallible word of the one true God.  The
Catholic Church claims that it is always right.

Now, hang on for a minute while I change out of this silly pink thing...

>
>>1) Wholesale murder (the Crusades)
>>2) Torture (the Inquisition)
>>3) Belief in a Heliocentric universe (re: Galileo)
>>4) Illiteracy (during the Middle Ages being caught with a Bible could
>>   get you in serious trouble if you weren't affiliated with the Church)
>>5) Bribery (buying permission to sin was once common)
>   So, if I could show you all of the corruptible evidence within
>the American government, would that prove to you that democracy is
>not any good, and should be done away with in the American society 
>as we know it? Let good ol' anarchy reign? My friend, judging a 
>message by the people who carry it, (even 500 years ago for crying out
>loud!) is pathetic. Just pathetic. I'm embarassed for you but will 
>assume you don't make such flaws in logic often...

Damm.  Now I've gotta put that tutu back on again.  No, Steve, the fact that
the American Government has corruptable members in it doesn't mean what we 
should chuck it out the window.  The fact is that the American Government
(especially the founding fathers) never attempted to claim that the government
could do no wrong.  That's why they put in all the checks and balances that
they did.

>
>>I might point out that I can build a machine that moves and sucks its
>>thumb.  These attributes would hardly make it human, however.  And if
>>I put a petri dish with some living tissue inside it, it would also
>>have some genetic material in it.  As for dreaming - how can you tell?
>   What a poor analogy... Doesn't merit me responding. Unless your machine
>has millions of responsive synapses which respond to it's environment.
>The ability to reproduce, a beating heart, thermo-responsive cells,
>responds to pain, etc etc etc... That's what makes the difference between
>man and machine. Although I must say, my macintosh seems to be a little
>more intelligent than some of your remarks...hmmmmm
>
>   steve (who's beginning to feel outnumbered 8)    )

Gee, Steve, you wouldn't be stooping so low as to claim that your Macintosh is
more intelligent than a poster on talk.abortion, would you?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=