arndt@lymph.DEC (01/25/85)
Last Sunday New York's Bihop John J. O'Connor read these letters, by a 13 year
old girl, from his pulpit in St.Patrick's Cathedral.
They are from an unborn baby about to be aborted because of a defective heart.
Dear Mom:
I know you know of my heart problem and I know it makes you sad. But the
doctors didn't tell you that it's really not very bad. My heart will be pure
later, just you wait and see. I'm going to be a doctor and make you proud of
me.
Love Baby
--------------
Dear Mom:
I hear you and the doctors talking. Please tell me it's not true. I know
other people kill their kids. I didn't think you would too. My heart's going
to be all right. Please. Don't you understand that's worse than the disease?
Love, Your Unborn Baby
----------------
Dear Mom:
How can you do this? I want to live. I have talent inside that I want to
give. Please don't say that you don't care. There's ideas inside me that I
want to share. I'm begging you please. Don't do this to me. There's a person
inside that I want you to see. Tomorrow's the day. My life they're going to
take. My heart's not that bad. It's just a mistake.
Love, Your Unborn Baby
-----------------
Dear Mom:
I love you even though I'm going to die. I just wrote you this letter to
tell you goodbye.
Love, Your Unborn Baby
-------------------
After reading them to a packed cathedral during the mass, he stood silent for a
few moments in the pulpit, and then quickly descended the spiral stairs.
Move over Charles Dickens and Harriet Beecher Stowe.
Regards,
Ken Arndtmjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/27/85)
> [series of letters "from a fetus"]
My opinion of a group (political or otherwise) is swayed not only by what
they say but by the rhetorical methods they use. Are there actually people
who would be swayed by such fiction? [Of course, this doesn't surprise me,
coming from the Catholic church. (flames by mail if you want me to see them,
or to net.religion).]
-Dragon
--
UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crgpreece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/28/85)
> Last Sunday New York's Bihop John J. O'Connor read these letters, by a > 13 year old girl, from his pulpit in St.Patrick's Cathedral. > > They are from an unborn baby about to be aborted because of a > defective heart. > > ... > > Move over Charles Dickens and Harriet Beecher Stowe. -------------- Fetuses don't think. They don't verbalize. They don't understand language from outside the womb. At the ages when abortions are most common they don't have nerve pathways allowing them to sense anything. You could as well write a series of letters from a sheep to a farmer asking that he not be slaughtered because next year he's going to grow just a super coat and make everybody proud. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
> Last Sunday New York's Bihop John J. O'Connor read these letters, by a 13 year > old girl, from his pulpit in St.Patrick's Cathedral. > They are from an unborn baby about to be aborted because of a defective heart. Hmmm. They are "from" an unborn baby, written by a 13-year-old girl... Let's not let reality step into this picture. [INSERT EMOTIONALLY MANIPULATIVE POEMS HERE] > Move over Charles Dickens and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Don't you mean "roll over" ... -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/29/85)
> /* Written 1:14 am Jan 28, 1985 by preece@ccvaxa in uiucdcsb:net.abortion */ > > Last Sunday New York's Bihop John J. O'Connor read these letters, by a > > 13 year old girl, from his pulpit in St.Patrick's Cathedral. > > > > They are from an unborn baby about to be aborted because of a > > defective heart. > > > > ... > > > > Move over Charles Dickens and Harriet Beecher Stowe. > -------------- > Fetuses don't think. They don't verbalize. They don't understand > language from outside the womb. At the ages when abortions are most > common they don't have nerve pathways allowing them to sense anything. > Do you have any proof for this? Have you ever heard of the fact that the fetus will recoil from the needle, knife, or whatever when it approaches them, even when very young? Fetuses develop most major systems very earlier(I don't have the exact date here). > > You could as well write a series of letters from a sheep to a farmer > asking that he not be slaughtered because next year he's going to > grow just a super coat and make everybody proud. > > scott preece > ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece > /* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.abortion */ There is also a big difference between a sheep and the child. No sheep has ever spoken forth in known history. But every human being alive was once a fetus. Brad
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/29/85)
> Fetuses don't think. > > scott preece > ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece How do you know? Gary Samuelson
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/29/85)
> > Fetuses don't think. They don't verbalize. They don't understand > > language from outside the womb. At the ages when abortions are most > > common they don't have nerve pathways allowing them to sense anything. > > > Do you have any proof for this? Have you ever heard of the fact that the fetus > will recoil from the needle, knife, or whatever when it approaches them, even > when very young? Fetuses develop most major systems very earlier(I don't have > the exact date here). The central nervous system develops into its final form around week 11-12, i.e. at the end of the first trimester. Since most abortions are performed inside the first trimester (something a woman has a right to under the terms of Roe vs Wade), the original posting *is* correct. Besides, read the passage again. It dealt with the ability to "think" and "verbalize". A fetus cannot verbalize, I hope we are in agreement on that. The jury is out on whether a fetus "thinks". "Recoil[ing] from" some pain source is instinctive, and *not* an indication of thought processes. Marcel Simon
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/29/85)
Note that this is posted to net.abortion ONLY, WHICH IS WHERE THIS CRAP BELONGS!!!!!!!!!!! Don't bore me with "you said it" - I'm way ahead of you. I always figured anti-abortionists had the minds of 13-year-olds. Thanks for the additional evidence. Keep chargin', Ken, right out to sea... Jeff Winslow
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/31/85)
> > Fetuses don't think. > How do you know? ----------- At the age I'm talking about they don't have anything to think with. If you're asking a broader question, like "Couldn't they think some way other than the way we understand?" then I would say you're giving yourself the burden of proving it. If someone asks me "How do you know oak trees don't think?" I'd have the same answer. Until there is a brain and central nervous system at a sufficient level of completion, there is nothing present that can reasonably be called thought. I'd probably be willing to extend that a little further in my personal belief, but I'll stick to rational argument here. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/31/85)
> > > Fetuses don't think. > > > > scott preece > > ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece > > How do you know? > > Gary Samuelson How do we know anyone else thinks? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/03/85)
> > > Fetuses don't think. They don't verbalize. > > Do you have any proof for this? Have you ever heard of the fact that the fetus > > will recoil from the needle, knife, or whatever when it approaches them, even > > when very young? Fetuses develop most major systems very earlier(I don't have > > the exact date here). > Besides, read the passage again. It dealt with the ability to "think" > and "verbalize". A fetus cannot verbalize, I hope we are in agreement > on that. The jury is out on whether a fetus "thinks". "Recoil[ing] from" > some pain source is instinctive, and *not* an indication of thought processes. Marcel. I am afraid you have missed the point entirely. The author of the previous article is demonstrating that the intelligence required for a simple reflex is no greater than the intelligence (s)he uses to think and verbalize. There was no other point. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/06/85)
> > > > > Fetuses don't think. > > > > > > scott preece > > > > How do you know? > > > > Gary Samuelson > > How do we know anyone else thinks? > -- > scc!steiny > Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 > 109 Torrey Pine Terr. > Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 > ihnp4!pesnta -\ > fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny > ucbvax!twg -/ Because we are! i.e. DesCartes DAVE BROWN I MAY BE IN HISTORY BUT I REMEMBER MY PHILOSOPHY, I THINK?!
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/06/85)
> > > Fetuses don't think. > > > How do you know? > ----------- > At the age I'm talking about they don't have anything to think with. > > If you're asking a broader question, like "Couldn't they think some > way other than the way we understand?" then I would say you're giving > yourself the burden of proving it. If someone asks me "How do you > know oak trees don't think?" I'd have the same answer. > > Until there is a brain and central nervous system at a sufficient > level of completion, there is nothing present that can reasonably be > called thought. I'd probably be willing to extend that a little > further in my personal belief, but I'll stick to rational argument > here. > > scott preece > ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/12/85)
> > > > Fetuses don't think. They don't verbalize. > > > Have you ever heard of the fact that the fetus > > > will recoil from the needle, ... > > A fetus cannot verbalize, I hope we are in agreement > > on that. The jury is out on whether a fetus "thinks". "Recoil[ing] from" > > some pain source is instinctive, and *not* an indication of thought processes. > > Marcel. I am afraid you have missed the point entirely. The author of the > previous article is demonstrating that the intelligence required for a > simple reflex is no greater than the intelligence (s)he uses to think > and verbalize. There was no other point. > -- > The Watcher Watcher, My very point is that NO intelligence is necessary for reflex action. Flight from pain and injury is characteristic of all forms of life, down to plants and viruses, none of which are intelligent. I believed the author 's "proof" to be invalid because it rests ona faulty assumption Marcel.