sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/31/85)
Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive.
There are enough good pro-choice arguments around without having
to resort to lies to prove a point. I'm sure that most people
would respect you more if you admitted your mistake than if you
(not just you) continued to weave silly webs around it to try
to cover it up.
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophieark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/03/85)
> Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. > There are enough good pro-choice arguments around without having > to resort to lies to prove a point. Surely this depends on your definition of `alive'! For instance, Ayn Rand defines `life' as `self-determined, self-sustaining course of action.'
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
> Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. > There are enough good pro-choice arguments around without having > to resort to lies to prove a point. I'm sure that most people > would respect you more if you admitted your mistake than if you > (not just you) continued to weave silly webs around it to try > to cover it up. > -- > Sophie Quigley Show me these "silly webs", Sophie. When someone takes a 6-week fetus out of a woman's body and it "lives", then it would be worthy of calling it alive. Until then, refrain from accusing other people of "resorting to lies" when they have shown evidence to support their position, OK? The fact the the fetus requires the environment of a human being's body to provide it with support tells me quite clearly that it is not alive. If you disagree with that notion, fine. That goes against definitions of life as we know it, but that's OK, the net is full of people who make up their own definitions at whim. [FLAME OFF] -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/06/85)
> > Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. > > There are enough good pro-choice arguments around without having > > to resort to lies to prove a point. (SOPHIE QUIGLEY) > Surely this depends on your definition of `alive'! > > For instance, Ayn Rand defines `life' as `self-determined, > self-sustaining course of action.' (ANDREW KOENIG) Did Miss Rand think a six-month-old baby is alive? -- Matt Rosenblatt
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (08/07/85)
Sophie: > > Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. Rich: > The fact the the fetus requires the environment of a human being's body > to provide it with support tells me quite clearly that it is not alive. > If you disagree with that notion, fine. That goes against definitions of > life as we know it, but that's OK, the net is full of people who make > up their own definitions at whim. [FLAME OFF] This argument is a lot like the argument behind euthanasia (which, by the way, I am for). Someone who is totally dependent on another person/machine (i.e. mother or life support machine) for life is on the borderline of what we would call a living person. (At least this is true for me.) They're certainly not the same question, but I think they have something in common. I wonder if there is any correlation between those in favor of abortion on demand and those in favor of euthanasia. (this just occurred to me and I thought I'd let you all share in the excitement...) marie desjardins park
z@rocksvax.UUCP (08/09/85)
alice!ark writes:
" For instance, Ayn Rand defines `life' as `self-determined,
self-sustaining course of action.'"
I am afraid I never read anything by Ayn Rand. Lets see what the Britannica
World Language Edition of Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary has to say:
(Reprinted without permission)
alive -adj. 1. In a living state, or a state in which the organs perform their
functions; having life: said of organisms: opposed to *dead*. 2. In
action, motion, or existence; in force, or operation; in full vigor.
3. In lively action; in an animated state; sprightly: *alive* with
enthusiasm. 4. In a condition of attentiveness, sensitiveness,
or susceptibility; open to impressions. 5. Abounding in life or
living things: The hive was *alive* with bees.
life -n. 1. That state in which animals and plants exist which distinguishes
them from inorganic substances and from dead organisms: characterized
by metabolism and growth, reproduction, and internally initiated
adaptations to the enviornment. 2. That vital existence, the loss
of which means death: to give one's *life*. 3. The period of animate
existence from birth until death, or a part of it. 4. Any conscious
and intelligent existence: the *life* here and hereafter. 5. Energy
and animation; spirit; vivacity: to put *life* into an enterprise
6. A source of liveliness, animation, etc.: to be the *life* of the
party. 7. That which keeps something alive; the source or essence
of existence. 8. A living being; a person: Many *lives* were lost.
9. living things in the aggregate: plant *life*. 10. In art, a
living figure or semblence: a picture drawn from *life*. 11. The
course of active human existence; human affairs: daily *life* in
the city. 12 A certain manner or way of living: the *life* of a
recluse. 13 *Theol.* A state of spiritual attainment or awareness
following conversion. 14 A biography. 15 The duration of efficiency
or usefulness of anything: the *life* of the machine.
(end of reprint)
It is interesting to note Rand's definition fits closely with the
4th alternate definition of life.
Can we now settle on our definitions of words? If someone wants to change the
meaning please send your correspondence to Funk & Wagnalls. *This is an
inappropriate forum for discussing changes to the English language.*
//Z\\
James M. Ziobro
Ziobro.Henr@Xerox.COM
{rochester,amd,sunybcs,allegra}!rocksvax!zgalenr@iddic.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (08/14/85)
In article <1407@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. >> There are enough good pro-choice arguments around without having >> to resort to lies to prove a point. I'm sure that most people >> would respect you more if you admitted your mistake than if you >> (not just you) continued to weave silly webs around it to try >> to cover it up. >> -- >> Sophie Quigley > >Show me these "silly webs", Sophie. When someone takes a 6-week fetus >out of a woman's body and it "lives", then it would be worthy of calling >it alive. Until then, refrain from accusing other people of "resorting >to lies" when they have shown evidence to support their position, OK? >The fact the the fetus requires the environment of a human being's body >to provide it with support tells me quite clearly that it is not alive. >If you disagree with that notion, fine. That goes against definitions of >life as we know it, but that's OK, the net is full of people who make >up their own definitions at whim. [FLAME OFF] >-- > [extraneous signature drivel omitted] > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr But of course, you would never do that, right?? Geez, doesn't everybody remember that living things are seldom found within the human body, and the few that are will survive if removed? How quickly they seem to have forgotten this basic "fact." Yes, really, Sophie. You should stop accusing Rich of resorting to lies when that is not what he does. He uses them exclusively. He knows no other method than to use his own manufactured evidence to support his claims. This is known as being consistent and logical. What a load! Warm regards, Galen. P.S. I expect to be flamed. Don't disappoint me, please!
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/17/85)
>>>Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. >>>There are enough good pro-choice arguments around without having >>>to resort to lies to prove a point. I'm sure that most people >>>would respect you more if you admitted your mistake than if you >>>(not just you) continued to weave silly webs around it to try >>>to cover it up. >>>-- >>>Sophie Quigley >>Show me these "silly webs", Sophie. When someone takes a 6-week fetus >>out of a woman's body and it "lives", then it would be worthy of calling >>it alive. Until then, refrain from accusing other people of "resorting >>to lies" when they have shown evidence to support their position, OK? >>The fact the the fetus requires the environment of a human being's body >>to provide it with support tells me quite clearly that it is not alive. >>If you disagree with that notion, fine. That goes against definitions of >>life as we know it, but that's OK, the net is full of people who make >>up their own definitions at whim. [FLAME OFF] >>[extraneous signature drivel omitted] >>Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr > But of course, you would never do that, right?? No. And I didn't do it here despite your vacuous assertion. > Geez, doesn't everybody remember that living things are seldom found > within the human body, and the few that are will survive if removed? > How quickly they seem to have forgotten this basic "fact." Was this in English? What does the statement (whatever it was supposed to mean) have to do with fetuses and their status? > Yes, really, Sophie. You should stop accusing Rich of resorting to lies > when that is not what he does. He uses them exclusively. He knows no > other method than to use his own manufactured evidence to support his > claims. This is known as being consistent and logical. Manufactured? The only thing manufactured are your contortions and fabrications. (Perhaps it would have been more succinct and to the point to respond to this article by quoting "extraneous nonsense and lies drivel omitted" rather than looking at the contentless trash again.) > What a load! Yeah, any points you can't answer constitute a "load", I guess. Now, go back and answer what I said or leave your abuse at the door. Thank you. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr