XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime
XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism
"Ivan Gowch" wrote in message
news:d9bltvseu64almf3fm1l2018c2km8070bk@4ax.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.
>>>FINALLY YOU SEE THE LIGHT!
>>>If it is just the definition that has changed, then society has
>>>no reasonable basis to allow the killing of one and not the other.
>
> 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)
|
