arndt@lymph.DEC (07/19/85)
Rich Rosen (my buddy) claims the human fetus is a "Parasite" in the woman's body!!! Since the Fetus grows from a cell (the egg remember??) of the woman's own body (ah gee, + the cute little sperm) HOW THE HECK CAN IT BE A PARASITE??. Is my liver a 'parasite'????? Ans. It is if it 'fits' my preconceived (har har) view of abortion - which itself stems from a political/religious world view. Just thought I'd ask. I know it won't do any good. Weren't Jews called Parasites Rich?? For just about the same reasons. Prove Jews are human they would say. The Jews kept saying, "Don't we bleed when you cut us?". "No, you're different", was the answer. The Nazis killed SUBHUMANS! ONLY. It was a highly honorable thing they did, in their eyes. Moral. Based on rights. Look, you guys (and gals), medical science is showing us more and more every day(Fetal development) that human life is a continuum from conception to death! That's facts!! And some on this net say it's not human until it's born! And Rich raises the absolutely stupid idea that it's not human because it can't survive outside the mother's body! What trash! What evil. First, it's only a matter of technology that it can't survive - we can now 'save' children at a very much earlier stage of fetal development outside the mother and the science is moving to an earlier and earlier age! Yes? Besides, the question of whether or not it can survive without help HAS NOTHING LOGICAL TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS HUMNAN!!!! A fish out of water is not a fish??Can Rich survive without his modem? Was he not 'Rich' before he got his modem for his birthday? Look, ultimately we none of us survive outside our mother's womb. Some last fora few seconds, minutes, others for 70 years. Survival as a test for humanness is BOGUS!! Abortion is murder or murder has no meaning. It is the causing of the death of a human being for whatever reason not balanced against another life - not another quality of life!! Rich is fond of showing us again and again how reasonable and logical he is - heis an antique in that he is a victim of the failed philosophical viewpoint called Positivism - but his preachments don't stand up to reason. Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/20/85)
In article <3213@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > >Rich Rosen (my buddy) claims the human fetus is a "Parasite" in the woman's >body!!! Since the Fetus grows from a cell (the egg remember??) of the woman's >own body (ah gee, + the cute little sperm) HOW THE HECK CAN IT BE A >PARASITE?? Cancerous tumors (like the one in your brain, Ken) grow from a person's own body. Guess what? (I hate to keep a moron in suspense for long) They're considered PARASITIC GROWTHS. >Is my liver a 'parasite'? Ans. It is if it 'fits' my preconceived (har >har) view of abortion - which itself stems from a >political/religious world view. Fine. Have it removed. At least I won't waste my time arguing your right to do so. >Weren't Jews called Parasites Rich?? For just about the same reasons. What? They couldn't live outside of wombs? I beg to differ... >The Nazis killed SUBHUMANS! They missed one. However, if they ever come back into power, I'll make sure they get your address. >That's facts!! You wouldn't know a fact if it came up and bit your genitals off. >Rich raises the absolutely stupid idea that it's not human because it can't >survive outside the mother's body! What trash! What evil. First, it's only >a matter of technology that it can't survive. No, it's a matter of nature. You just can't keep a two months old embryo alive to the point of maturity and until you can, your argument loses. >Look, ultimately we none of us survive outside >our mother's womb. Some last fora few seconds, >minutes, others for 70 years. Survival as a test for humanness >is BOGUS!! You're right. From now on, we will no longer use the term "abortion". From now on, we will say that every woman has the right to say "it's time to give birth!" At that point a skilled Arndtologist will come in and carefully extract the "baby" from the mother's womb. A birthday party will be arranged for those who last more than 30 seconds... >Abortion is murder or murder has no meaning. It is the causing of the death >of a human being for whatever reason not balanced against another life - not >another quality of life!! Actually, murder never had anything to do with "balanced against another life". Murder is murder. You're just wimping out because you think that people won't jump on you with the old "what if the mother's life is in danger?" line. Well I don't buy it. You're just a spinelss cretin. >Rich is fond of showing us again and again how >reasonable and logical he is - he is an As opposed to you who just makes an ass out of himself. >antique in that he is a victim of the failed philosophical viewpoint >called Positivism - but his preachments don't stand up to reason. Look who's talking. >Ken "barefoot and pregnant" Arndt -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I always try to avoid cliche's like the plague!" -Rev. Wang Zeep
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/85)
> Rich Rosen (my buddy) claims the human fetus is a "Parasite" in the woman's > body!!! Since the Fetus grows from a cell (the egg remember??) of the woman's > own body (ah gee, + the cute little sperm) HOW THE HECK CAN IT BE A PARASITE?? > Is my liver a 'parasite'????? Ans. It is if it 'fits' my preconceived > (har har) view of abortion - which itself stems from a political/religious > world view. Ken Arndt (his own buddy) didn't read the original article, apparently. The liver fills a function in my body. If it becomes cancerous, I would have it removed. Or would you try to stop me? (Didn't someone once say that there was an SF story about a world like that!) How dare I take that 'living thing' out of my body!! For some people, having a fetus inside their womb is a good thing---they want to nurture it into a child. Who are you to say that someone who doesn't want it there must be forced to keep it there? My god, Kenneth, she has eggs in her ovaries, too! By your logic, if she has her tubes tied, or even if she's celibate, oh dear, she's KILLED those 'babies' inside her!!! I use the term "your logic" in the loosest possible sense, of course. > Weren't Jews called Parasites Rich?? For just about the same reasons. Prove > Jews are human they would say. The Jews kept saying, "Don't we bleed when > you cut us?". "No, you're different", was the answer. The Nazis killed > SUBHUMANS! I always like it when you show how closely tied your beliefs are to those of Nazis, Kenneth. People who support the right of abortion do more than just say "No, they're different", they provide factual evidence. People who would deny that right (like you/) are the ones who sit on their duffs and say "No, they're different!", or who engage in manipulative propaganda because they can't GIVE those necessary facts. > Look, you guys (and gals), medical science is showing us more and more every > day(Fetal development) that human life is a continuum from conception to > death! That's facts!! And some on this net say it's not human until it's > born! And Rich raises the absolutely stupid idea that it's not human because > it can't survive outside the mother's body! What trash! What evil. Evil being in the eye of the evildoer, I'll let that pass. I thought you didn't like science... Oh, only when it promotes YOUR position. By continuing your reasoning (again, the term used very loosely), masturbating would have to be a crime just like abortion, and given the function your postings seem to serve, you'd be spending a lot of time in jail... > it's only a matter of technology that it can't survive - we can now 'save' > children at a very much earlier stage of fetal development outside the > mother and the science is moving to an earlier and earlier age! Yes? Good. Then if fetuses can be removed from the wombs of women who don't want them, then YOU (and those like you) can wean them into humanhood using this technology. Oh, I see, YOU don't want them, you want the woman to be "responsible" because of your blame-oriented religious dogma... I'd love to see the day when this technology really does exist (to my knowledge it doesn't on a large scale), so that anti-abortionists could really put their money where their mouths are. > Besides, the question of whether or not it can survive without help HAS > NOTHING LOGICAL TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS HUMNAN!!!! A > fish out of water is not a fish??Can Rich survive without his modem? Was he > not 'Rich' before he got his modem for his birthday? The water, the air, and my modem, elements of the environment that are needed for survival (according to Ken) have one thing in common: they are NOT a living person's body!!!!! And since we respect the rights of human beings to their bodies, the right to abortion logically follows. (Oh, I forgot, some of us don't respect human rights.) > Abortion is murder or murder has no meaning. I have a dictionary. Murder still has meaning. > Rich is fond of showing us again and again how reasonable and logical he is > - heis an antique in that he is a victim of the failed philosophical > viewpoint called Positivism - but his preachments don't stand up to reason. In net.philosophy, I asked those like you to stand up and tell us about this grand debunking. It seems all you non-positivists can do is tell us how positivism has been debunked, whatever it may be. Can you show how it doesn't stand up to reason, or can you only assert that it doesn't? Or must you quote a text by an author you don't understand who concludes "Thus it is debunked"?? Grow up, Kenneth. We've been through this before. We know you to be incapable of such a real argument as I describe. Go fetch a book. Quote from it. Let us know how learned you are. Say nothing. As usual. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (07/21/85)
>> = arndt@lymph.DEC > = csdf@mit-vax.UUCP >> Rich Rosen (my buddy) claims the human fetus is a "Parasite" in the woman's >> body!!! Since the Fetus grows from a cell (the egg remember??) of the >> woman's own body (ah, gee, + the cute little sperm) HOW THE HECK CAN IT BE >> A PARASITE?? > Cancerous tumors (like the one in your brain, Ken) grow from a person's > own body. Guess what? (I hate to keep a moron in suspense for long) > They're considered PARASITIC GROWTHS. >> Is my liver a 'parasite'? Ans. It is if it 'fits' my preconceived (har >> har) view of abortion - which itself stems from a >> political/religious world view. > Fine. Have it removed. At least I won't waste my time arguing your right > to do so. I think you're both forgetting one basic fact. A fetus is quite distinct from his/her mother -- just look at the DNA. And yes, genetic information is important -- it's what makes us different from the rabbits, cats, dogs, fish, etc. and what makes each human a unique individual. Arguments based on the assumption that the fetus is a body organ/tissue outgrowth are thus rather silly. Remember, with FALSE as an assumption you can prove anything. >> Weren't Jews called Parasites Rich?? For just about the same reasons. > What? They couldn't live outside of wombs? I beg to differ... They lived in the 'womb' of society and used its resources. So society just exercised its 'right' to control its own body, and killed them. After all, surely their lives weren't worth as much as society's convenience, right? >> Rich raises the absolutely stupid idea that it's not human because it can't >> survive outside the mother's body! What trash! What evil. First, it's >> only a matter of technology that it can't survive. > No, it's a matter of nature. You just can't keep a two months old embryo > alive to the point of maturity and until you can, your argument loses. What utter bs!!! Are you claiming that before the first heavier-than-air flight, it was a law of nature that it was impossible for heavier-than-air craft to fly? Are you claiming that before the first trip to the moon there was a law of nature stating 'you can't travel from the Earth to the moon.'? And if so, who or what magically changed the laws? There is no reason to believe that the natural laws a century ago were any different from the natural laws today, or that the natural laws a century from now will be any different. So if (by an incredibly small probability) aliens landed tomorrow and gave us a 'fetal support system' machine, it would work even though it might take a while for our technology to catch up to it. I suggest that you learn the definitions of 'nature' and 'technology'. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | > Cancerous tumors (like the one in your brain, Ken) . . . | > Guess what? (I hate to keep a moron in suspense for long) | | >> The Nazis killed SUBHUMANS! | > They missed one. However, if they ever come back into power, I'll make | > sure they get your address. | | > You wouldn't know a fact if it came up and bit your genitals off. | | > You're just wimping out . . . You're just a spineless cretin. | | > As opposed to you who just makes an ass out of himself. |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- How incredibly persuasive. From which school playground did you obtain these wonderfully logical arguments? -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) (07/23/85)
is a parasite inside a woman's womb says it can't be since part of it came from a woman's body. Well, Ken, how about viruses which reproduce using a human's DNA -- should they be protected? How about cancer cells? Also, Ken, lets not get too emotional in our replies or accuse others of immorality -- the pro-choicers are not trying to legislate your morality. On another note, Liz Allen writes: >It is quite difficult to determine when a fetus becomes sentient by >[Fank Torreal's] definition because of the limits of technology. According to >_The Zero People_[1], a 48 day old fetus will twist and turn away when >his upper lip is stroked by a fine hair. How long has he been able to >do this? The better our technology, the better we can test and the >better we can detect such things. It is important to remember that the presence of automatic reflexes is not an indication of sentience. The leg of a 'brain dead' person will twitch if the knee is struck below the kneecap. This is not evidence of sentience and these individuals are routinely allowed to die. (An extreme example of an object with reflexes which is not sentient is a Venus Fly Trap.) And by the way, animals have reflexes too and we humans kill them all the time without being put in prison. Jim Gordon, Jr (ATT BELL LABORATORIES - W. Long Branch NJ)
wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) (07/23/85)
posting. I will repeat the first part here:
Ken Arndt's argument in reply to Rich Rosen's assertion that
the fetus
is a parasite inside a woman's womb says it can't be, since part of it
came from a woman's body. Well, Ken, how about viruses which
reproduce using a human's DNA -- should they be protected? How about
cancer cells? Also, Ken, lets not get too emotional in our replies or
accuse others of immorality -- the pro-choicers are not trying to
legislate your morality.
Jim Gordon (AT+T Bell Labs, WL Branch NJ)rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
> I think you're both forgetting one basic fact. A fetus is quite distinct > from his/her mother -- just look at the DNA. And yes, genetic information > is important -- it's what makes us different from the rabbits, cats, dogs, > fish, etc. and what makes each human a unique individual. Arguments based > on the assumption that the fetus is a body organ/tissue outgrowth are thus > rather silly. Remember, with FALSE as an assumption you can prove anything. The genetic information in a cancerous growth is ALSO different. That's part of what makes it cancerous. Arguments based on the assumption that one's opponents are operating on the assumption that the fetus is an "outgrowth" are flawed, because clearly no one has made that assumption. >>> Weren't Jews called Parasites Rich?? For just about the same reasons. >> What? They couldn't live outside of wombs? I beg to differ... > They lived in the 'womb' of society and used its resources. So society just > exercised its 'right' to control its own body, and killed them. After all, > surely their lives weren't worth as much as society's convenience, right? And body lice live in the "womb" of your pubic hair. Anybody can whip up a stupid metaphor. >>No, it's a matter of nature. You just can't keep a two months old embryo >>alive to the point of maturity and until you can, your argument loses. > What utter bs!!! Are you claiming that before the first heavier-than-air > flight, it was a law of nature that it was impossible for heavier-than-air > craft to fly? Are you claiming that before the first trip to the moon there > was a law of nature stating 'you can't travel from the Earth to the moon.'? > And if so, who or what magically changed the laws? > There is no reason to believe that the natural laws a century ago were any > different from the natural laws today, or that the natural laws a century > from now will be any different. So if (by an incredibly small probability) > aliens landed tomorrow and gave us a 'fetal support system' machine, it would > work even though it might take a while for our technology to catch up to it. > I suggest that you learn the definitions of 'nature' and 'technology'. Mr. Newton, you are truly a brilliant orator. What the hell does any of this have to do with the topic? The point is that it's a woman's right to remove things from her body that she doesn't want inside of it. If you remove a fetus at the point suggested and just leave it, if anti-abortionists are right about their feeling pain, it would feel a hell of a lot of pain before just ceasing to function. [FORSYTHE INSULTS KEN, OF COURSE WITH GOOD REASON.] > How incredibly persuasive. From which school playground did you obtain these > wonderfully logical arguments? Apparently from the same one you attended. Nyah nyah. Back to the argument at hand. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/23/85)
(Thomas Newton) writes: >I think you're both forgetting one basic fact. A fetus is quite distinct >from his/her mother -- just look at the DNA. And yes, genetic information >is important -- it's what makes us different from the rabbits, cats, dogs, >fish, etc. and what makes each human a unique individual. I think you are forgetting a basic fact. Many cancer cells are quite distinct from the parent's body -- just look at the DNA. And yes, the genetic information is important -- it's what allows the cells to grow unchecked. >They lived in the 'womb' of society and used its resources. So society just >exercised its 'right' to control its own body, and killed them. After all, >surely their lives weren't worth as much as society's convenience, right? Wrong! Society shouldn't kill or control people just because they live off it! Free the murderers, theives, drug pushers, pimps, con-men, arsonists and right-wing-abortion-clinic-bombers! >> No, it's a matter of nature. You just can't keep a two months old embryo >> alive to the point of maturity and until you can, your argument loses. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >There is no reason to believe that the natural laws a century ago were any >different from the natural laws today, or that the natural laws a century >from now will be any different. So if (by an incredibly small probability) >aliens landed tomorrow and gave us a 'fetal support system' machine, it would >work even though it might take a while for our technology to catch up to it. > >I suggest that you learn the definitions of 'nature' and 'technology'. I suggest you learn how to read. I did say,"Until you can." Here's an example of your mentality: (Conversation circa 1840) Ma: Hey Pa, let's go out west to Califonia. Pa: We can't do that Ma. You know I couldn't survive the trip through them thar Rocky Mountains. Ma: No problem Pa. In about half a century they will invent a flyin' machine so let's fly there. Pa: Good idea Ma. No reason why we shouldn't fly, after all, there's no natural law saying we can't. I think you get the point. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I always try to avoid cliche's like the plague!" -Rev. Wang Zeep
liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (07/24/85)
In article <1258@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >Good. Then if fetuses can be removed from the wombs of women who don't >want them, then YOU (and those like you) can wean them into humanhood >using this technology. Oh, I see, YOU don't want them, you want the woman >to be "responsible" because of your blame-oriented religious dogma... >I'd love to see the day when this technology really does exist (to >my knowledge it doesn't on a large scale), so that anti-abortionists could >really put their money where their mouths are. I don't think you'll find the pro-lifers *so* reluctant to take the responsibility of the "fetus" outside of the womb. Pro-lifers are more and more putting their money, resources and time where there mouth is -- to help women who really do want to keep their baby. I think you're forgetting something else here, too. A woman who has given up her baby (fetus?) to be raised by someone else -- even at such an early time -- is likely to want to know what has happened to the child. I think the situation would be more like adoption than abortion since with abortion you know that the story ended. I think it is likely that the woman will want some say in what happens to the child and that, of course (it should be "of course"!!) involves responsibility. If she's willing to sign some kind of adoption papers, then it is a different story. At the Pregnancy Aid Center, we often hear an odd dichotomy. A woman who wants an abortion will often say something like "I couldn't give up my baby for adoption". Notice that fetus is a "fetus" until she thinks about it being born, then it is "my baby". I think a fetus removed from a woman's womb way early would be called a "baby" and the woman would call it "my baby" -- as long as the baby's at least 6 weeks in the womb and looks like a baby. -- Liz Allen U of Maryland ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz liz@tove.ARPA "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/25/85)
> The point is that it's a woman's right to remove > things from her body that she doesn't want inside of it. > -- Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Once we concede this "right" as an absolute right, the ball game is over. We might as well close down net.abortion and stop arguing. The current state of the law is 1) It's not an absolute right. The states can ban abortions entirely (with the usual emergency exceptions) after the sixth month of pregnancy, in order to protect 2) The fetus's right to life, which springs into existence magically at that point in the pregnancy, while 3) The father's right to procreate (a Constitutional right -- I can cite cases) is subordinate to the woman's right to remove the fetus from her body. Anti-abortion people are looking to reorder the precedence of these conflicting rights, with the precedence becoming 1) The woman's right to continue living 2) The woman's right to remove things from her body, EXCEPT A FETUS, that she doesn't want inside of it 3) The fetus's right to continue living inside its mother until term 4) The father's right to procreate 5) The woman's right to remove a fetus from her body that she doesn't want inside of it. If Rich Rosen wants to stop this from happening, it's not enough for his arguments to be good enough to convince the feminists (both pro-life and pro-choice) in netnewsland. They've got to be good enough to convince the anti-feminist and neutral State legislatures out there, who wouldn't even pass the Equal Rights Amendment. And "ipse dixit" postulating of "woman's right to do this" and "woman's right to do that" has not proved good enough in the past, and is not likely to prove good enough in the future. -- Matt Rosenblatt
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (07/25/85)
>> What the hell does any of this have to do with the topic? Why don't you ask your good friend csdf? He's the one who claimed that it is a matter of "nature" that we can't keep a two-month fetus alive outside of the womb today. If you don't want to see my replies to silly arguments, tell your friend not to post them in the first place. >> The point is that it's a woman's right to remove things from her body that >> she doesn't want inside of it. Obviously, everyone doesn't believe that this applies to unborn babies or else there would be no abortion debate. And if you do believe so strongly in this premise, why did you spend so much time trying to convince us of a falsehood ("the fetus is not alive") instead of addressing the main issues? -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) (07/26/85)
> > Abortion is murder or murder has no meaning. It is the causing of the death > of a human being for whatever reason not balanced against another life - not > another quality of life!! > > Ken Arndt There is no doubt that abortion is the killing of something, but that does not make it murder. Murder is a term which only has meaning in a given social-legal context. We kill cattle by the millions, soldiers and civilians during a war, theives, and other killers. None of these are defined as murder. (I'm sure you could think of many other cases). Murder in one country and time may not be defined as such in another. The line drawn between murder and killing (which everyone of us does) is essentially arbitrary from an historical and broad point of view; however, from a personal point of view it is generally sharply drawn. As societies and contexts change, the line also changes. As with most societal changes, this generally produces generational gaps separating the old from the new. Generally change is only evidenced in the new; the old remain confused, angry, and resentful. Bill Powers
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/85)
>>Good. Then if fetuses can be removed from the wombs of women who don't >>want them, then YOU (and those like you) can wean them into humanhood >>using this technology. Oh, I see, YOU don't want them, you want the woman >>to be "responsible" because of your blame-oriented religious dogma... >>I'd love to see the day when this technology really does exist (to >>my knowledge it doesn't on a large scale), so that anti-abortionists could >>really put their money where their mouths are. [ROSEN] > I don't think you'll find the pro-lifers *so* reluctant to take > the responsibility of the "fetus" outside of the womb. Pro-lifers > are more and more putting their money, resources and time where > there mouth is -- to help women who really do want to keep their > baby. [ALLEN] The question is would they pay to maintain/sustain a fetus till it is capable of autonomy and THEN continue to care for it throughout its infancy/childhood/adolescence/etc. Multiply "it" by the number of women wishing to have abortions to calculate the total number "them". I think you're forgetting something else here, too. A woman who > has given up her baby (fetus?) to be raised by someone else -- even > at such an early time -- is likely to want to know what has happened > to the child. I think the situation would be more like adoption > than abortion since with abortion you know that the story ended. > I think it is likely that the woman will want some say in what > happens to the child and that, of course (it should be "of course"!!) > involves responsibility. If she's willing to sign some kind of > adoption papers, then it is a different story. Anything's possible, but ... "Likely?" > At the Pregnancy Aid Center, we often hear an odd dichotomy. A > woman who wants an abortion will often say something like "I couldn't > give up my baby for adoption". Notice that fetus is a "fetus" > until she thinks about it being born, then it is "my baby". I > think a fetus removed from a woman's womb way early would be called > a "baby" and the woman would call it "my baby" -- as long as the > baby's at least 6 weeks in the womb and looks like a baby. Appearances can be and are deceiving. How interesting that you admit a difference between a fetus and a living baby. What question do women give the above response to. Perhaps "Why don't you have the baby and give it up for adoption rather than having an abortion?" I always thought counseling was supposed to help a person decide what's best for her, not to persuade her to make a decision to the counselor's liking. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/27/85)
Matthew Rosenblatt writes: >1) It's not an absolute right. The states can ban abortions entirely > (with the usual emergency exceptions) after the sixth month of > pregnancy, in order to protect I don't think we should confuse the state's law making power with absolute rights. In Russia, you are not allowed to speak your mind on certain subjects, does that mean it's not an absolute right? In America, you can't smoke marajauna. Almost everyone I know does and most of them feel the ought to be able to if they want. One used to be able to, you know. Marajauna is a native American weed. What do you think was in the Indian's peace pipes anyway? An awful lot of people think that antimarajauna legislation is silly, and certainly is hasn't stopped anybody from smoking. Just because the states can illegalize something doesn't mean it's not your right or that it's an evil thing. (A request that marajauna legality flames go to net.politics) >Anti-abortion people are looking to reorder the precedence of these >conflicting rights... SOME anti-abortion people. >3) The father's right to procreate (a Constitutional right -- I can > cite cases) is subordinate to the woman's right to remove the > fetus from her body. (on another list...) >4) The father's right to procreate This really cracks me up! "I'm sorry I raped your daughter, Matt... I was just excersising my right to procreate and I couldn't find anybody else. By the way! When I get out of jail, I'll be wanting my baby back so she'd better keep it healthy. Thanks... see you in five years." The whole idea that a male's right to produce offspring is higher than the female's NOT to it so fascist I cannot find a less flame-oriented way to respond! -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/27/85)
Thomas Newton writes: >>> What the hell does any of this have to do with the topic? > >Why don't you ask your good friend csdf? He's the one who claimed that it is >a matter of "nature" that we can't keep a two-month fetus alive outside of the >womb today. Hi Rich! What? Matter of nature? No. Actually, we don't have the TECHNOLOGY to keep a two-month-old fetus alive outside the womb. What? No, that's silly, why should we change laws based on technology we EXPECT to be developed in the future? Later, Rich! >Obviously, everyone doesn't believe that this applies to unborn babies or else >there would be no abortion debate. Actually, we we're discussing fetuses. >And if you do believe so strongly in this >premise, why did you spend so much time trying to convince us of a falsehood >("the fetus is not alive") instead of addressing the main issues? Actually, I don't remeber Rich making this assertion. You keep claiming he does. Maybe if you listened to what Rich really said, you'd learn something. After all, nobody here is really going to change their mind, but becoming more enlightened about "the other side" never hurt anybody. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (07/28/85)
>> And if you do believe so strongly in this premise, why did you spend so >> much time trying to convince us of a falsehood ("the fetus is not alive") >> instead of addressing the main issues? > Actually, I don't remeber [sic] Rich making this assertion. You keep > claiming he does. Maybe if you listened to what Rich really said, you'd > learn something. I can't believe that you're actually claiming this, given the number of messages that he posted. But you made a mistake. You didn't wait long enough for all of his messages to have disappeared from our VAX: | From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) | Newsgroups: net.abortion | Subject: Re: Fetus = living organism (?????) | Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 10:13:07 EDT | Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week | Lines: 34 | | ... | > My grandmother would | > cease to function if we stopped caring for her -- and I'll beat you | > silly if you call her a fetus. | | Pardon me, but I assume your grandmother is and has been alive. A fetus | is not. | ... I'm sure that any other site that has a longer backlog of messages could post more examples. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/29/85)
> Obviously, everyone doesn't believe that this applies to unborn babies or else > there would be no abortion debate. And if you do believe so strongly in this > premise, why did you spend so much time trying to convince us of a falsehood > ("the fetus is not alive") instead of addressing the main issues? > -- Thomas Newton Why do I bother? Beats me. You're obviously not willing to listen to statements of fact of any sort, only statements that agree with your predefined position. You should go into pompous assertion as a career, you do it so well. (Falsehood?) -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/31/85)
>>>And if you do believe so strongly in this premise, why did you spend so >>>much time trying to convince us of a falsehood ("the fetus is not alive") >>>instead of addressing the main issues? [NEWTON] >>Actually, I don't remeber [sic] Rich making this assertion. You keep >>claiming he does. Maybe if you listened to what Rich really said, you'd >>learn something. [FORSYTHE] > I can't believe that you're actually claiming this, given the number of > messages that he posted. But you made a mistake. You didn't wait long > enough for all of his messages to have disappeared from our VAX: > > | > My grandmother would > | > cease to function if we stopped caring for her -- and I'll beat you > | > silly if you call her a fetus. > | > | Pardon me, but I assume your grandmother is and has been alive. A fetus > | is not. > | ... > > I'm sure that any other site that has a longer backlog of messages could post > more examples. [NEWTON] This has got to be the single most evasive, most abusive, and lamest attempt at argument I have ever seen in the history of the net. An empty assertion is one for which related evidence is not provided. How do you "prove" that someone who backs up his statements with such evidence is simply "making empty assumption"? Just quote him, but leave out the parts of the articles in which he gave supporting evidence of his position!! That should be proof enough! Why not tell the readers what was contained in "..."? Perhaps you avoid doing so because to do so would tarnish your position. YOU'RE the one who's been making the assertions, bud, based solely on your opinions. It seems only others are required to back up their statements to make a point, but not you. It seems NOW, after reading this, that even when they DO, you'll just edit out those parts when replying to prevent your position from being shattered. This is not an argument. This is a fraud perpetuated by Thomas Newton in the guise of an argument. You and Samuelson should get together. Form a club of people who argue by intimidation, who are more interested in pushing their arguments by ANY means (when rational discussion has failed due to lack of evidence/ability to reason) as long as it's accepted. This seems to be the new technique of arguing, used by people like Rosenblatt as well: the validity of an argument is not in its basis in reason, but in its ability to be convincing to listeners, no matter how deceptive the "convincing" process is. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/01/85)
> Why do I bother? Beats me. You're obviously not willing to listen to > statements of fact of any sort, only statements that agree with your > predefined position. You should go into pompous assertion as a career, > you do it so well. (Falsehood?) Let's be blunt. The claim that "the fetus is not alive" goes against everything that modern biology tells us. If you expect any of us to believe that you are right and modern biology is wrong, you had better damn well give some reasons other than "I say it's so and if you don't agree then you have a closed mind". The methods which science uses to reach its conclusions are nothing if not open-minded. The only 'support' you have given for your assertion so far is the claim that the fetus is a parasite. If false, this claim has no bearing on the main assertion. If true, it falsifies your main assertion -- a parasite is a LIVING organism. Now you might be able to get a lively debate started on whether viruses are alive or not. But I suspect that debate belongs in a different newsgroup. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/01/85)
> 4) The father's right to procreate
Where does this come from? And what gives you the right to say that 'anti-
abortion people' place this *anywhere* in the precedence? It seems to me
that the strict ordering
1) The woman's right to continue living
2) The fetus's right to continue living
3) The woman's right to remove things from her body which she
doesn't want inside of it
roughly describes the legal ordering that most pro-life people are working
towards ("roughly" because some people make an exception for rape/incest).
I guess that I wouldn't be too surprised to learn of a Supreme Court ruling
decreeing the 'right to procreation', given that the Supreme Court has also
decreed at various times that:
- Northern states must help return escaped slaves to the South
- Separate-but-equal is Constitutional
- Abortion is a right
- High school students have little or no protection against
arbitrary search and seizure
I get the impression from your posts that you think the world is divided
entirely into pro-feminist and anti-women groups, with nobody in-between.
I don't like a lot of feminist/leftist politics, but neither do I go for
this 'right to procreate' nonsense.
-- Thomas Newton
Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPAjeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (08/01/85)
> >>>And if you do believe so strongly in this premise, why did you spend so > >>>much time trying to convince us of a falsehood ("the fetus is not alive") > >>>instead of addressing the main issues? [NEWTON] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>Actually, I don't remeber [sic] Rich making this assertion. You keep ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>claiming he does. Maybe if you listened to what Rich really said, you'd > >>learn something. [FORSYTHE] "this assertion", ie, "the fetus is not alive" > > | [Here Newton inserts two excerpts from Rich's posts in which Rich > > is caught typing 'fetus is not alive'. Rich's arguments were > > deleted, I assume for brevity. (*or am I allowed to assume anything? > > I think not. ;*) > > This has got to be the single most evasive, most abusive, and lamest attempt at > argument I have ever seen in the history of the net. An empty assertion is > one for which related evidence is not provided. How do you "prove" that > someone who backs up his statements with such evidence is simply "making empty > assumption"? Just quote him, but leave out the parts of the articles in which > he gave supporting evidence of his position!! That should be proof enough! > [ROSEN] > .....[long flaming paragraph] Rich made a mistake. Nowhere did Thomas call the referenced assertion ("fetus is not alive", for those, like myself, who tend to get lost in all the namecalling) 'empty', as Rich attacks him for so doing. > -- > Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr AMBAR "But there's no room on my desk for ME!"
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/03/85)
In article <407@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> (Thomas Newton) writes: >Let's be blunt. The claim that "the fetus is not alive" goes against >everything that modern biology tells us. If you expect any of us to >believe that you are right and modern biology is wrong, you had better >damn well give some reasons other than "I say it's so and if you don't >agree then you have a closed mind". The methods which science uses to >reach its conclusions are nothing if not open-minded. > >The only 'support' you have given for your assertion so far is the claim >that the fetus is a parasite. If false, this claim has no bearing on the >main assertion. If true, it falsifies your main assertion -- a parasite >is a LIVING organism. > >Now you might be able to get a lively debate started on whether viruses are >alive or not. But I suspect that debate belongs in a different newsgroup. > > -- Thomas Newton > Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA Let's be blunt. The claim that "the fetus is a human" goes against everything that modern biology tells us. If you expect any of us to believe that you are right and modern biology is wrong, you had better damn well give some reasons other than "I say it's so and if you don't agree then you have a closed mind". The methods which science uses to reach its conclusions are nothing if not open-minded. The only 'support' you have given for your assertion so far is the claim that the fetus is close enough to human. If false, this claim has no bearing on the main assertion. If true, then the fetus can be removed from the mother. Now you might be able to get a lively debate started on whether women have rights or not. But I suspect that debate belongs in a different newsgroup. (I love text editors) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/04/85)
The problem with the statement 'modern biology tells us that the fetus
is not human' is that you are using your own definition of 'human'. In
the past, there have been proposals on this net that children up to the
age of 12 are not 'human', and are thus fair game to be slaughtered!!!!
And clearly if your definition of HUMAN is HUMAN(X) = HOMO_SAPIENS(X) &
(TIME_SINCE_BIRTH(X) >= 13 years), logic will lead you to conclude that
children up to the age of 12 are not 'human'.
A fairly standard practice when one wants to oppress someone is to define
the function HUMAN(X) in such a way as to exclude everyone in the group to
be oppressed. Thus, in the Old South, one of the terms often found in the
definition of HUMAN(X) was (not BLACK(X)). And in Hitler's mind, one of the
terms in the definition of HUMAN(X) was (not JEW(X)).
Arguments on the definition of the function HUMAN(X) seem to occupy a large
amount of time in this newsgroup, and to a great extent these arguments can
not be decided by science since the decision to include/exclude particular
terms is philosophical in nature. This is not to say that any definition of
HUMAN(X) is as good as any other -- I'm sure most people on the net disagree
with the examples given above -- but that it is hard to resolve differences
because ultimately there are no objective tools for doing so.
On the other hand, the function ALIVE(X) is fairly well-defined. Rich's
assertion that ALIVE(fetus) = FALSE was thus either a lie (intentional or
not) or an attempt to introduce a second meaning for ALIVE. If it was a
lie, it was definitely counterproductive. But even if it was an attempt
to redefine ALIVE it was counterproductive -- do we really need the sort
of confusion surrounding the word "alive" that we have surrounding the word
"human"? If every word used to communicate has extremely ambiguous meanings,
we will all be the worse off for it.
-- Thomas Newton
Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPAdesjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (08/05/85)
> On the other hand, the function ALIVE(X) is fairly well-defined. Rich's > assertion that ALIVE(fetus) = FALSE was thus either a lie (intentional or > not) or an attempt to introduce a second meaning for ALIVE. If it was a > lie, it was definitely counterproductive. But even if it was an attempt > to redefine ALIVE it was counterproductive -- do we really need the sort > of confusion surrounding the word "alive" that we have surrounding the word > "human"? If every word used to communicate has extremely ambiguous meanings, > we will all be the worse off for it. > > -- Thomas Newton > Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA Before we go any further: 1. Do you propose that the fact that a fetus is or is not alive has any bearing on whether or not abortion is/should be moral or legal? If not, I really don't see what difference it makes HOW one defines "alive" as far as this debate is concerned. If so: 2. If a fetus is alive, is a plant alive? Why or why not? By the way, I think nearly every word you could possibly think of has ambiguous meanings. In the context of this debate many words (like "human" and "alive") are VERY ambiguous, mainly because you are using them in a different sense than I am. You can't just say "there is only one definition of word X and it is the one that I am using" unless everyone else agrees to it. So why don't you let us know your definitions of "human" and "alive" and we'll tell you what we think. marie desjardins park
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/06/85)
> 1. Do you propose that the fact that a fetus is or is not alive > has any bearing on whether or not abortion is/should be moral or > legal? If not, I really don't see what difference it makes > HOW one defines "alive" as far as this debate is concerned. > If so: Yes, the fact that a fetus is alive does have some bearing on whether or not abortion is/should be moral or legal. In particular, if something is not alive (in the biological sense), it is obvious that it does not have any rights. Do you think that a rock, a piece of metal, or a TV set has rights? Rich Rosen was claiming that a fetus is not alive and thus does not have rights. If true, this claim would end the abortion debate. But it's not true if he's using the biological definition of life; and if he is using any other definition, the second part does not necessarily follow from the first (suppose one defined ALIVE(X) to be FALSE for all members of some random minority group -- would this cast doubt upon their rights or upon the definition of ALIVE being used?) Before you start flaming, note that I never said that ALIVE(X) is a SUFFICIENT condition for HAS_RIGHTS(X). It's a NECESSARY condition--not ALIVE(X) implies not HAS_RIGHTS(X). Thus showing that ALIVE(fetus) does not automatically give HAS_RIGHTS(fetus), but it does falsify any "proofs" of not HAS_RIGHTS(fetus) which depend upon not ALIVE(fetus) -- such as the one that Rich Rosen gave. > 2. If a fetus is alive, is a plant alive? Why or why not? Clearly a fetus is alive, a plant is alive, and you are alive. Each of the three is composed of one or more living cells. Very simple, basic biology. I'm surprised that you'd even ask the question "is a plant alive?" It seems very obvious to me. > By the way, I think nearly every word you could possibly think of has > ambiguous meanings. In the context of this debate many words (like > "human" and "alive") are VERY ambiguous, mainly because you ar using > them in a different sense than I am. You can't just say "there is > only one definition of word X and it is the one that I am using" > unless everyone agrees to it. But there is a well-defined, objective meaning for ALIVE(X), and at least outside of net.abortion, it seems to be in common use. People do refer to plants and animals as "alive" or "dead", not as "not-living". It seems to me that you need to justify any OTHER definition of ALIVE. > So why don't you let us know your definitions of "human" and "alive" > and we'll tell you what we think. I've told you which definition I use for ALIVE; let's have yours. Then the group can tell you what they think of your definition. After that, perhaps we can trade definitions of "human". -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) (08/07/85)
There seems to be a debate going on about the meaning of the word
'alive.' Thomas Newton seems to think the term is well defined.
Well, Thomas, is a cancer cell alive? Is a kidney alive -- can I
choose to transplant my kidney, or do I have to ask it's permission?
Personally I think that a fetus qualifies as alive, as does a cancer
cell, but I think that the carrier of either has the right to remove
it. The concept of 'alive' is not so well defined as some think!
Jim Gordon, Jr. (JR, not SR as has sometimes been reported)foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/07/85)
Alive may be well defined. However the discussion about carrots, bacteria, etc being alive leads me to believe that the definition of alive has very little to do with the issue of abortion.
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/11/85)
> Alive may be well defined. However the discussion about carrots, bacteria, > etc being alive leads me to believe that the definition of alive has very > little to do with the issue of abortion. The only reason we were on the 'alive' issue at all is that Rich Rosen kept insisting that fetuses are not alive despite biology to the contrary. If you believe that ALIVE(fetus) = ALIVE(rock) = FALSE, you don't need to grapple with the real issues; since non-living things don't have rights, you can immediately jump to the conclusion that abortion is OK. But the problem with this argument is that the fetus IS a living thing, and so you do need to grapple with the real issues after all. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (08/11/85)
> [Thomas Newton] > Arguments on the definition of the function HUMAN(X) seem to occupy a large > amount of time in this newsgroup, and to a great extent these arguments can > not be decided by science since the decision to include/exclude particular > terms is philosophical in nature. This is not to say that any definition of > HUMAN(X) is as good as any other -- I'm sure most people on the net disagree > with the examples given above -- but that it is hard to resolve differences > because ultimately there are no objective tools for doing so. > > On the other hand, the function ALIVE(X) is fairly well-defined. Rich's > assertion that ALIVE(fetus) = FALSE was thus either a lie (intentional or > not) or an attempt to introduce a second meaning for ALIVE. If it was a > lie, it was definitely counterproductive. But even if it was an attempt > to redefine ALIVE it was counterproductive -- do we really need the sort > of confusion surrounding the word "alive" that we have surrounding the word > "human"? If every word used to communicate has extremely ambiguous meanings, > we will all be the worse off for it. ------------------------------------------------- Dead wrong. ALIVE(X) is also pretty damn ambiguous. It is not at all unreasonable to say that many individual cells in the human body are alive. Long semantic arguments about what is alive and what is not are just as futile and scientifically undecidable as what is human. Your statements about HUMAN(X) are right on the mark. These same statements also hold for ALIVE(X). -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/14/85)
> The only reason we were on the 'alive' issue at all is that Rich Rosen > kept insisting that fetuses are not alive despite biology to the contrary. > If you believe that ALIVE(fetus) = ALIVE(rock) = FALSE, you don't need to > grapple with the real issues; since non-living things don't have rights, > you can immediately jump to the conclusion that abortion is OK. But the > problem with this argument is that the fetus IS a living thing, and so you > do need to grapple with the real issues after all. [NEWTON] I don't have to repeat for the readers how badly Mr. Newton argues. Many many people have mentioned how broad the definition of alive and not alive really is. Yet he INSISTS that it is a black and white dichotomy: if it's not alive, it's like a rock. Perhaps it could be not alive and like a virus. Maybe that's why you insisted that discussion of whether viruses are alive didn't belong here: to discuss it might do damage to your balck and white argument. -- "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
galenr@iddic.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (08/14/85)
In article <1089@homxa.UUCP> wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) writes: >There seems to be a debate going on about the meaning of the word >'alive.' Thomas Newton seems to think the term is well defined. >Well, Thomas, is a cancer cell alive? Is a kidney alive -- can I >choose to transplant my kidney, or do I have to ask it's permission? >Personally I think that a fetus qualifies as alive, as does a cancer >cell, but I think that the carrier of either has the right to remove >it. The concept of 'alive' is not so well defined as some think! > > Jim Gordon, Jr. (JR, not SR as has sometimes been reported) I'm not the person to whom you addressed the (rhetorical?) question, but: Yes, cancer cells are alive; if they were dead they would not cause tumors. Do you know of any non-living substance that can generate faulty copies of itself (other than software)?? The kidney transplant analogy is right on!! Pregnant women who wish to have their fetus removed should find another woman whose life is threatened due to lack of a healthy fetus, so that a transplant can be performed. All you've illustrated is that anyone (man or woman) may, in certain cases, have a normally functioning part of their body removed. Transplants are not the only instance; there is also cosmetic surgery. Fact is, each situation has its own unique considerations. If the abortion issue lended itself easily to the use of examples to prove arguments, we'd be done already. Warm regards, Galen