From: lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Subject: Re: Women have awareness! Do fetuses?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 92 04:27:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.230838.12816@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.164346.20719@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
>>
>>The goal is to debate - you show a lack of comprehension of debating.
>>If you are to debate you would need to show how motion implies sentience.
>>You've failed to do that and if you fail to respond then readers often
>>assume that you are unable to debate.  Are you claiming it was a joke,
>>now?  Maybe you should include some smileys until people understand your
>>posting styles.
>>
>I *did* respond--twice.

Umm, where did you respond with arguements that show how motion
implies sentience?  Responding is not equivalent to making a
successful arguement, Simon.

>You all will flame me anyway, no matter how I respond.

I suggest you drop the martyr complex and include some facts in
your arguements (include the arguements as well).  No side of
any debate has all the foolish posters as far as I've seen.

>I don't have to info right here in front of me, but I have read that a
>baby being aborted feels the pain of being aborted.  

Well, from what I've *read* here, most fetuses are aborted before
that is possible.  Perhaps you know not to believe everything you
read and look something up?  (On a personal aside - I surmise that
you would not like the idea of legal abortion if fetuses/etc were
anesthetized beforehand so I wouldn't try the tack of appealing to
sympathy as an excuse for making abortion illegal)

>                                                     Now while that may
>not constitute sentience, this must reinforce the idea that afetus is indeed
>alive.

I believe that most fetuses are alive when aborted - as in a living 
tissue mass.  It is yet to be determined whether the life is significant
or not.  Or how it is more significant than a woman's bodily autonomy.

>But if I say anything that is pro-life the you all tell me how stupid I am
>am no matter what I say.  The jokes were in reference to a Presidential
>candidate.  BTW, I am looking for better software to allow me to edit posts.

There are many people I disagree with who are able to present compelling
arguements that I find difficult to refute.  Poor arguements or a lack
of arguements are irritating and worthy of flamage imo.  Do not expect
that I read all of your posts - I personally don't care what jokes you
make as long as you are willing to take a stand and present rational
arguements (using facts instead of "I read it somewhere" would greatly
improve your responses).  So just because you are pro-life doesn't mean
I think you are stupid.  Since you haven't shown you have a grasp of 
what an arguement is, I'm greatly inclined to think you are unable to 
present an arguement.  I'm willing to be suprised by a turn of events.
Maybe you should start with an explanation of how motion implies
sentience.  Perhaps you could successfully argue that because I feel
wind that implies the wind is sentient.  Of course, you can admit
that your arguement had some serious faults in it as you initially
presented it.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer

-- 

The cat is very fond of using the keyboard when I'm typing...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion