"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message

Herb Martin wrote:

"The Wolf With the Red Roses" <after-dark-arms@cox.net> wrote in

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:33:41 -0500, "Herb Martin"
<news@learnquick.com> wrote something wonderfully witty:
<snip>

Roe can be a terrible decision but still have been correct to
extend protections
(not the law) for a human or civil right. Roe might have come
down just the
opposite and extended protections for the right of unborn babies.

There are no such things as "unborn babies", there are however,
fetuses.

This is a matter of opinion. While it is quite possible that the
technical medical term is "fetus" until delivery, it is obviously
also true that practically
ever woman and her family calls it a "baby", as in "When is your
baby due?", "Do you know if the baby is a boy or a girl?", "Today
we saw the ultasound of our baby for the first time." etc.

That ain't the only silly thing those "unstable and emotional,
hysterical and prone to fainting" women folk have uttered when their
hormones are raging.

I thought ol' Jones was outt'a here, but he's still hanging around
trying to sound smart.

On this subject, how is it that numerous people have been convicted
of two murders for killing one pregnant woman? Even manslaughter
convictions have been successfully brought against drivers who have
killed a pregnant woman, and the "fetus" was named as a second
victim. How do you explain that bit of duplicity?