esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (10/10/84)
[] > From: cher@ihuxj.UUCP (Mike Musing) > UFFFF! Are you feeble-minded due to birth defects or malnutrition? No, no -- the correct comeback is "I took lessons -- from you". > Brian Peterson said that abortion does not harm members of society. > You called that question-begging. So you seem to be in doubt about > that. By George, I think he's got it! Just to set the record straight, though, let's not concentrate on the words "members of society", since Brian Peterson also spoke of "laws that prohibit harming someone" and said "there is a difference in those kinds of laws". > WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY THAT ARE HARMED? WHAT'S THE > HARM? If you did not mean fetuses what else did you mean? As you said, I am in *doubt*: so your questions should read, who *might* be someone that is harmed, and what *could* be the harm? (Note also that I have dropped the unnecessary phrase "members of society".) Now if you ask these CORRECTED questions, the answer is yes, that's who(?) I meant. > The only good reason for rejecting the "assumption" in question is > classification of fetuses as members of society. My only mistake > was assuming that you wee capable of figuring out that much. Sorry. MY only mistake was assuming you could see the difference between *rejecting* an assumption and *questioning* it. I am not trying to reject it: I would be perfectly happy to see a good argument for it! DO YOU HAVE ONE?? (Here's betting you don't!) If not, then do us all a favor and shut up! > P.S. How about "Paul V Torek - the medieval apologist" For your information, the notion that a fetus is a human being is pretty much a historical novelty -- see Nisbet, *Prejudices*, ch 1 (Nisbet is a conservative(!) "pro-choice"r). Paul V Torek -- the remedial logicist ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 <-- not the sender's addr.