matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/08/85)
To the pro-choicers: Dr. Bernard Nathanson was a leader in the fight for abortion rights, and presided over 60,000 abortions. Eventually, he realized that he had presided over 60,000 deaths. He is now a leader in the right-to-life movement. Just as he found out he had been wrong, consider the possibility that you may be wrong. To the pro-lifers: We are the side with nothing personal to gain by winning. The abortionists are making a killing, and they have the law on their side. But we will win, and they will return to the ignominy and opprobrium where abortionists hid before 1973. Be strong and of good courage, fear not, nor be affrighted of them. -- Matt Rosenblatt
slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) (11/11/85)
Let me preface this by saying I am against abortion. I am also very much in favor of its legality. However. > <Matt Rosenblatt> >To the pro-choicers: Dr. Bernard Nathanson was a leader in the fight >for abortion rights, and presided over 60,000 abortions. Eventually, >he realized that he had presided over 60,000 deaths. He is now a >leader in the right-to-life movement. Just as he found out he had >been wrong, consider the possibility that you may be wrong. You have to consider the other side also. You may be wrong. >To the pro-lifers: We are the side with nothing personal to gain >by winning. The abortionists are making a killing, and they have the >law on their side. But we will win, and they will return to the >ignominy and opprobrium where abortionists hid before 1973. Be >strong and of good courage, fear not, nor be affrighted of them. If this happens, I will be VERY surprised. Lots of things are bad, or bad for you. Take smoking. Look at the number of lives we could save by outlawing smoking. Or drinking; we could save many lives by outlawing alcohol. But it's big business. Realistically it isn't going to happen, nor should it. There is no way to prove that aborting a three month old fetus is killing a human being. Potential is not the same as actuality. And until this is proven, I have to work under the assumption that a law against abortions would be interfering with personal freedoms. And there is *no* excuse for interfering with freedom. Sean. -- Sean L. Gilley Phone: (606) 272-9620 or (606) 257-4613 {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma{!ukgs}!slg, slg@UKMA.BITNET Watches are a conspiracy by Swiss confidence men.
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (THE PALE AVENGER) (11/19/85)
In article <2370@ukma.UUCP> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes: > You have to consider the other side also. You may be > wrong. I always consider I may be wrong. (It says so in my signature :-) > There is no way to prove that aborting a three month old fetus > is killing a human being. This is so easy to prove (at least from a biological perspective) its a joke. To say that killing something is killing a human being you need to prove two things, 1) that the thing is a human being and 2) that it is alive. 1) There is only one real definition of what a human being is and that is a member of the genus homo sapiens. There have been over the years many other complex definitions presented, but none that would impress a biologist and I prefer to listen to an expert. Determining if a fetus is homo sapiens is just a matter of counting chromosomes. A fetus has 46 and will have differences from it's "host" therefor a fetus is a distinct human being. 2) A fetus carries on all processes normally considered to be evidence of life. The Krebs cycle is proceeding normally. Oxygen is being combined with sugar to produce energy. Wastes are being created and eliminated. Therefor the fetus is alive. That was simple wasn't it? :-) > Potential is not the same as actuality. A fetus is an actuality, sperm and eggs are potential. > And until this is proven, I have to work under the assumption > that a law against abortions would be interfering with personal > freedoms. Does this mean you are going to change your mind? :-) > Sean. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk (Paul W. Karber)