rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/11/85)
>>Human beings are alive. Living organisms of OUR species, whose rights we >>respect. Fetuses (funny you forgot to bring them up) are not. > Fetuses are living organisms of OUR species. Then surely they don't need to "live" in a womb, they can be removed from the body of a woman who doesn't want it inside of her, who might not want (at this time, perhaps not at all) to allow it the privilege of using the inside of her body as the place where it would become (eventually) a living organism. As you yourself asked in an earlier article, is there a biologist in the house? If you take it out and it ceases to function, it wasn't a living thing, it was still a fetus in a parasitic stage of development. It wasn't alive, it had to make use of the environment of a woman's body in a parasitic way to survive. If the woman wants (or doesn't want) to let the fetus grow to term inside of her so that a living baby is produced, that is her right. As usual, it's that simple. > (DEEP BLACK SARCASM ON) > I certainly don't plan to bear kittens. And since they are, why are their > rights being abused? > Gee, maybe that's what we're here to discuss...... > (DEEP BLACK SARCASM OFF) To quote a famous philosopher: Huh? Who's "they"? -- Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
edw@ihopa.UUCP (Edwin Windes) (07/11/85)
> > Fetuses are living organisms of OUR species. > If you take it out and it ceases to function, it wasn't a > living thing, it was still a fetus in a parasitic stage of development. By "ceases to function" I assume you mean DIE, or would that be sensational retoric on my part? Is it my terminal, or is this just a stupid argument? My grandmother would cease to function if we stopped caring for her -- and I'll beat you silly if you call her a fetus. Look, it is just a matter of degree. Not one of you out there can convince me that you are self-sufficient, but most of you are living members of our species. -- Edwin D. Windes ..!ihnp4!ihopa!edw AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il "Are we having fun yet? ... wake me when it starts."
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/11/85)
> >>Human beings are alive. Living organisms of OUR species, whose rights we > >>respect. Fetuses (funny you forgot to bring them up) are not. > > > Fetuses are living organisms of OUR species. > > Then surely they don't need to "live" in a womb, they can be removed from ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, Rich, you're alive (or so it's been rumored), but surely you don't need to live in a oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere...how about some nice ammonia, just for a change of pace? Why don't you volunteer to explore Jupiter for us (without a spacesuit, natch....) > the body of a woman who doesn't want it inside of her, who might not want > (at this time, perhaps not at all) to allow it the privilege of using the > inside of her body as the place where it would become (eventually) a living > organism. As you yourself asked in an earlier article, is there a biologist > in the house? If you take it out and it ceases to function, it wasn't a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If it was functioning, it must have been alive. Where's m'biologist, Rich? > living thing, it was still a fetus in a parasitic stage of development. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr -- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "To those who love it is given to hear Music too high for the human ear." --Bruce Cockburn -- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "To those who love it is given to hear Music too high for the human ear." --Bruce Cockburn
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/12/85)
>>> Fetuses are living organisms of OUR species. >>If you take it out and it ceases to function, it wasn't a >>living thing, it was still a fetus in a parasitic stage of development. > By "ceases to function" I assume you mean DIE, or would that be > sensational retoric on my part? It sure would be! To "die" a thing would first have to have been alive, right? Use of that term as just as sensationalistic as Samuelson's "Look what they do to the 'dead' 'babies'" propaganda. > Is it my terminal, or is this just a stupid argument? Rather than asserting that my argument is stupid (which doesn't necessarily make it so despite your best wishes), you might try attempting to show where the fallacies are in that argument. > 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. Let's get this quite straight: neither allowing a fetus to grow to term inside your body (assuming you're a woman) nor deciding that you don't want your insides used for that purpose is wrong, right, correct, incorrect, or whatever adjective you want to put on it. The point is it is up to the person whose body we are talking about. (Undoubtedly this will lead to more sensationalist rhetoric of the genre "What about the 'person' inside?" and so on. That's always the case that sensationalism and emotionalism are resorted to when there is no more logical ammunition to be fired.) -- Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/12/85)
>>>>Human beings are alive. Living organisms of OUR species, whose rights we >>>>respect. Fetuses (funny you forgot to bring them up) are not. >> >>> Fetuses are living organisms of OUR species. >> >>Then surely they don't need to "live" in a womb, they can be removed from ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Well, Rich, you're alive (or so it's been rumored), but surely you don't > need to live in a oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere...how about some nice ammonia, > just for a change of pace? Why don't you volunteer to explore Jupiter > for us (without a spacesuit, natch....) The environment you are talking about that human beings need to live is NOT the inside of another human being's body!!! If YOU want to sustain the removed fetus till it grows to term to the point at which it would be a viable human being through some means of YOUR own choosing, then feel free to do so. But you have no right to impose the obligation of supplying that environment for the fetus on someone else telling her she MUST use her own body. >>the body of a woman who doesn't want it inside of her, who might not want >>(at this time, perhaps not at all) to allow it the privilege of using the >>inside of her body as the place where it would become (eventually) a living >>organism. As you yourself asked in an earlier article, is there a biologist >>in the house? If you take it out and it ceases to function, it wasn't a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > If it was functioning, it must have been alive. My car functions. So does my terminal. Functioning does not imply aliveness. Aliveness is a much more specialized type of functioning. That is why I purposely chose the more general word "functioning". -- Like a turban (HEY!), worn for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (07/14/85)
It's become obvious that Rich Rosen doesn't know even basic high school
biology, and when faced with it keeps repeating over and over
"the fetus is not alive, the fetus is not alive"
This is akin to repeating
"the moon is made of green cheese, the moon is made of green cheese"
or "the earth is flat, the earth is flat"
Trying to convince him otherwise is like trying to convince one of the early
religious fanatics that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not vice versa. There
is nothing that will make him change his mind; certainly the facts haven't.
-- Thomas Newton
Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPAcsdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/16/85)
In article Thomas Newton writes: >It's become obvious that Rich Rosen doesn't know even basic high school >biology, and when faced with it keeps repeating over and over > > "the fetus is not alive, the fetus is not alive" > >Trying to convince him otherwise is like trying to convince one of the early >religious fanatics that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not vice versa. There >is nothing that will make him change his mind; certainly the facts haven't. > > -- Thomas Newton It's become obvious that Thomas Newton doesn't know even basic high school social responsibility, and when faced with it keeps repeating over and over "the fetus is human, the fetus is human" Trying to convince him otherwise is like trying to convince one of the early religious fanatics that women are people with rights. There is nothing that will make him change his mind; certainly the facts haven't. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "Don't get bogged down with details, just eat the stupid peice of paper." -Rev. Wang Zeep
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/85)
> It's become obvious that Rich Rosen doesn't know even basic high school > biology, and when faced with it keeps repeating over and over > > "the fetus is not alive, the fetus is not alive" > > This is akin to repeating > > "the moon is made of green cheese, the moon is made of green cheese" > or "the earth is flat, the earth is flat" > > Trying to convince him otherwise is like trying to convince one of the early > religious fanatics that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not vice versa. There > is nothing that will make him change his mind; certainly the facts haven't. > > -- Thomas Newton Hey, Edgar, did you see any facts in *that* article? No, Clarence, I musta missed 'em. I'll look again. ... Nope, no facts there! Looks to me like he's just doin' what he accused Rosen of doing: asserting his opinion as facts without substantiation. If I remember correctly, Rosen said that the fetus wasn't alive because if you took it out of the environment it usurps to function, a woman's womb, it ceases to function. It's just not a self-sustaining entity. What has this Newton guy said to support his position? Just that Rosen is wrong. Looks like that's about it. He claimed that Rosen didn't listen to the facts but he didn't offer any. I wonder why anyone would do that? What do you think it would take to convince *him*? I don't know, Edgar, the facts haven't. *YOU'RE* Edgar, *I'M* Clarence! Oh right! Sorry. It's so confusing being a made-up character in a dialog. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr