Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site iddic.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!iddic!galenr From: galenr@iddic.UUCP (Galen Redfield) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Live fetuses Message-ID: <2121@iddic.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 16:22:55 EDT Article-I.D.: iddic.2121 Posted: Wed Aug 14 16:22:55 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 03:59:49 EDT References: <399@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1654@mnetor.UUCP> <1407@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: galenr@iddic.UUCP (Galen Redfield) Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 40 Summary: In article <1407@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. >> There are enough good pro-choice arguments around without having >> to resort to lies to prove a point. I'm sure that most people >> would respect you more if you admitted your mistake than if you >> (not just you) continued to weave silly webs around it to try >> to cover it up. >> -- >> Sophie Quigley > >Show me these "silly webs", Sophie. When someone takes a 6-week fetus >out of a woman's body and it "lives", then it would be worthy of calling >it alive. Until then, refrain from accusing other people of "resorting >to lies" when they have shown evidence to support their position, OK? >The fact the the fetus requires the environment of a human being's body >to provide it with support tells me quite clearly that it is not alive. >If you disagree with that notion, fine. That goes against definitions of >life as we know it, but that's OK, the net is full of people who make >up their own definitions at whim. [FLAME OFF] >-- > [extraneous signature drivel omitted] > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr But of course, you would never do that, right?? Geez, doesn't everybody remember that living things are seldom found within the human body, and the few that are will survive if removed? How quickly they seem to have forgotten this basic "fact." Yes, really, Sophie. You should stop accusing Rich of resorting to lies when that is not what he does. He uses them exclusively. He knows no other method than to use his own manufactured evidence to support his claims. This is known as being consistent and logical. What a load! Warm regards, Galen. P.S. I expect to be flamed. Don't disappoint me, please!