From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: In circles
Organization: Encore Computer
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:28:58

In article <0095923F.BAFB15E0@vms.csd.mu.edu> 2757feyena@vms.csd.mu.edu (NAME) writes:

>I have been reading your little debate and I  don't see much progress. I
>would like to respond to a comment about Pro-Lifers. Pro-Lifers offer
>only life giving choices. Abortion is not a life giving option. 

	Obvious flaw: cases in which the life of the mother is threatened.
Less obvious flaws: you are assuming that "life" is sacred and to be held
above all else. However, nowhere do you define "life". Do pro-lifers eat?
If so, they are ending lives. Do they take medicine? If so, they are ending
lives. Do they have surgery? If so, they are ending HUMAN LIVES. 

	Now, what about the woman whose life will be ruined by
a pregnancy? What about the woman and the child who both have miserable
lives, because she cannot support it? What about the woman whose health
is permanently affected by carrying a fetus to term?

>There
>was some talk about the rhetoric used i.e. Pro-Abortion, Pro-Choice
>ProDeath, and I would just like to say a couple things. Pro-Abortion
>doesn't imply that you are forcing women to have abortion. It implies
>that you are favor of abortion on demand. You see abortion as optionand
>therefore you are for it, pro-Abortion. 

	But not all pro-choicers see abortion as an option. Some of them
see it as immoral. Some of them are rational enough to realize that what
they see as immoral may not be to others. Some of them have no wish to
deny others their rights, merely because they have moral qualms.

>Pro-Death comes from two things.
>The child will not be born, it will not be alive like you and I, it will
>have died. The unborn child's life gets literally sucked out in an
>abortion. If you are in favor of abortion on demand, then you are supportingh
>the dying of that little child, therfore Pro-Death. There is also the notion
>that if you are not Pro-Life, then you must be Pro-DFeath. The opposite
>of Life is death and therefore, Pro-Death. 

	Tell me, Mr./Ms. NAME, do you eat? Are you in favor of food on 
demand? If so, then you are supporting the dying of that little creature
of God, therefore you are pro-death. 

	If you really wanted progress in this debate, you would cut the ad 
hominem shit. 

>The only other point I want
>to reiterate, is that the child would be alive if te abortion had not taken
>place. If it is not alive, then it must have died. I know someone will
>respond and say that the child is not living, but if the child can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and not the day before, does that mean that the child is not living the day before?
>fore? What i a child is born a day before 20 weeks and lives. There isn'tay before
>a point where life just begins. It is life from the beginning. 

	Ad hominem attack. The construction of a simplistic and stupid
strawman. Please provide one reliable source that claims that the fetus
is neither alive nor human.

>There is
>something growing, something human, and it will become a full person, but
>it  needs time to grow. That is the stage that we were all in. Were we not
>human for the first part of our lives? We had human chrosones, human genes
>human brain, human hearts, human arms, human legs, human fingers, human toes
>human knee caps, human face, human eyes, human everything. We were human from
>the moment of conception. We had everything determined from that point on.
 
	Please explain to me why the entity which exists at conception has
rights which are equivalent to and which, in some cases exceed the rights
of a fully grown, fully functional human being. Then, please locate in
said entity, the human brain, human heart, human arms, human legs, human
fingers, human toes, human knee caps, human face, human eyes. Point them 
out to me in a picture. Hell, you can just send me a GIF.

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity