XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:39:09 GMT,  wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   RN:   
   ==>> ==>You believe that there is some clear demarcation between the intrinsic   
   ==>> ==>natures of the fetus before birth   
   ==>> ==>and the neonate after birth,   
      
   IG:   
   ==>> You got that right also.   
      
   RN:   
   ==>> ==> a position for which there is not the slightest   
   ==>> ==>evidence.   
      
   IG:   
   ==>> No evidence?  You honour, allow me to   
   ==>> introduce as Exhibit 1, the umbilical   
   ==> cord.   
      
   ==>New stuff here: Of course the umbilical provides a clear demarcation between   
   ==>the mother and the fetus.   
      
   		No, it doesn't.  The umbilical cord, in fact,   
   		*negates* the demarcation between the   
   		fetus and the mother.   
      
   ==>That is not the issue or the point I am making. The issue we were   
   ==>discussing, did you forget, is whether the umbilical   
   ==>provides a clear demarcation between the fetus before the cutting and the   
   ==>fetus after the cutting.   
      
   		Of course it does.  After the cutting, there is no   
   		more fetus.  There is a baby.   
      
   ==>The fetus before the cutting relies on it's mother's lungs for life and   
   ==>after the cutting it relies on it's   
   ==>own. But whatever qualities it has that makes it human are not affected in   
   ==>the least   
      
   		When did I ever say a fetus was not human?   
      
   ==>by the cutting of the cord. Biologically it is the same organism at almost   
   ==>exactly the same stage of development.   
      
   		Never did I say otherwise.   
      
   ==>If it can be killed before it can be killed after.   
      
   		Of course it CAN be.  But it MAY NOT be.   
   		After the umbilical cord is cut, what it was attached   
   		to is a *person.* A person with rights, including the   
   		right not 	to be murdered.   
      
   ==> To say that before the   
   ==>cutting it can be killed with impunity by the mother   
   ==>and after it cannot is ridiculous whatever the law or you say.   
      
   		That's your opinion -- something I am growing less   
   		and less interested in with every passing minute.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   IG:   
   ==>> How nice for you.  But how does that show that   
   ==>> I "seem to take (my) positions at random"?   
      
   ==>New stuff here: Perhaps I was to harsh in saying random. You just change   
   ==>your position   
   ==>for no apparent reason.   
      
   		Man, you are stupid.  Show me where I've changed   
   		my position even once in this conversation.   
      
   		Do you always just make things up out of thin air?   
   		Oh yeah, I remember -- you're the one who   
   		acknowledged pulling "facts" out of your ass.  You   
   		seem to find that pleasurable, because you keep   
   		doing it.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   ==>Or just consider that the   
   ==>chemistry and physics   
   ==>of the fetus could not possibly be radically changed by cutting an umbilical   
   ==>cord.   
      
   		I never said the entity's chemistry or physics   
   		changed with the cuttng of the umbilical cord.   
   		I said the *definition* of the entity changes.   
      
   		But I don't expect you to understand this.  You   
   		are much more comfortable ascribing to your opponents   
   		things they did not say and deliberately misstating   
   		their positions.   
      
   		Good luck with all of it.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Better an abortion clinic on every streetcorner   
   than the birth of one more unwanted child.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)