On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:25:28 GMT, Your Name <Email@address.org> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<Y65Bb.35253$4f3.18358@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com> wrote:

If all the adultery laws were repealed would that
make it *ok* to commit it? I guess that depends on who you ask.

Correct. Pure opinion.

Whose opinion is the question. No one will or ever has asked a fetus. I
doubt you will get a response, but then I've known many disabled who
can't either. Would you have chosen life or abortion had you the
opportunity? Somehow I doubt many would have.

Your comments are irrelevant. A fetus is an undeveloped organism which
cannot make any decisions of any kind.

If I had dies before birth I would
never have known it and therefore could not have an opinion on the subject.

Some societies have traditionally killed members who were no longer
productive. Our society has determined this is not acceptable behavior.

Samething with abortion except no one will ever ask the fetus. Is that
really freedom of choice?

No one asks a blood cell if it wants to be part of a blood test. Or a
cancer if it wants to be removed.

A blood cell has zero potential of survival because of it's design. It
is designed to perform certain duties as part of a system. Does cancer
serve good purpose? Is there any lost potential there by keeping it
around? Who makes the decision to remove it? You know, sometimes the
best judge of what is best for self is self.

Exactly, just as the pregnant woman is the best judge as to whether or not
she wishes to complete or terminate the process.

Whose choice is the question. It's about convenience.

Irrelevant.

Your choice to ignore it does not constitute irrelevancy.

There is no requirement for a woman to justify her decision to you or
anyone else. Any such attempts are irrelevant.

Are they only 5/6's human
like the blacks once were considered, too?

Wrong. See the link.


Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
states which may be included within this union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number
of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1

It was 3/5's, and only for taxation and representation. Nothing here about
only be part human.

I was wrong on the numbers, yes. My point is though they were not
considered to be truly human. If they were, they would have had to be equal.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. The number 3/5's was
used only for determining population numbers. Note "Indians not taxed"
were also excluded. Does this mean that Indians not taxed were not human
while Indians that were taxed (and included) were human?

I was referring to the general opinion of a large portion of the
population. Majority rules is not an infallible method of judgment.

No, you made a specific reference which I refuted. You attempted to create
guilt by association but mis-stated your facts and made yourself look
silly. There is no indication at all that blacks were ever considered by
law not to be human.

Majority rules is the way our society works.

It does have a lot to do with this topic. Whose freedom of choice.

That of the only person involved - the woman.

Where not talking about a wart or E. Coli here. Not some foreign
invasion of differing species. It is a human.

The only human involved is the pregnant woman. A fetus is human but not a
human (an individual) because that status requires being born alive.

When you plant corn you
get corn. When a horse gets pregnant it has a horse. A human gives birth
to a human. No creature on this planet, to the best of my knowledge can
reproduce anything except it's own kind.

DNA will simply and quickly determine what is human.

However you want to define person, the fact of the matter remains is
that a human fetus is a human. Not alien.

No, it is human in exactly the same way human blood or other human tissue
is human. It does not have a separate legal identity and the status of
being a human.

Look up the difference between an adjective and a noun.

Slaves had two choices, conform or die. Women didn't have it much
better. It was the people who would benefit from such situations that
made those choices. I find the idea of slavery and discrimination
repulsive, no matter race, sex, or stage of life. It is barbaric to to
choose life or death for someone who has no been stripped of certain
rights.

Yet you would force a pregnant woman against her will to provide her body
and it's resources as well as risk her health in a manner that is not her
choice and (if a fetus is a person as you contend) for the benefit of
another.

That sounds like slavery to me.

Self induced slavery. I would not force her to get pregnant in the first
place, generally it is her decision to participate in pregnancy inducing
behavior. A woman who gets pregnant by willing participation is NOT a
victim except by her own practice. Self induced slavery, if you will. If
she is not willing or capable of taking such responsibility then she
should examine her activities (men as well). She is more closely an
accomplice. A true victim is not given choice. Such as a fetus. An
alcoholic is responsible for drinking or not, a victim of his/her own
decision/s, just like anyone else. A fetus is victim of another
person's decision.

Since a fetus is not a person there is only one person involved. All of
your comments are strictly judgmental points in which you wish to make
others live according to how you think they should live. Exactly what
gives you that right?

It's absolute garbage to make a woman with an unwanted pregnancy a
victim unless she had no choice in the participation of pregnancy
inducing acts (rape) . If she had a willing participation in theft or
treason she is not a *victim*, she is guilty, whether it be by
association or direct action. Yet if she gets unwantingly pregnant by
her willing actions she therefore becomes a victim?

Theft and treason are illegal acts and thus participants are liable for the
results of their activities. Please advise exactly when sex became illegal
- I seem to have missed that.

Of what? Her own
irresponsibilty. Her fault, not the fetus, not me, not anyone else.
Should the innocent be punished (death penalty at that) for the actions
of the guilty? Even serial killers get a chance to sit around for years
before sentence is carried out for a crime they actually commited.

A fetus is not a person therefore you cannot draw any parallels with the
actions of persons.

None of your comment is relevant.

Of course not. That would entangle you in your position beyond all
understanding.

Uh, no. Maybe the fact that it is better for one person to die rather
than two, however sad it is.

No person dies in a normal abortion.

There are many images which I would prefer not to have flashing through my
mind every day. Any surgery detail would fit here.

Yet it is ok, because out of sight, out of mind, right?

Do you contend there is something wrong with surgery because I would prefer
not to dwell on the details and visual images?

There is an entirely different purpose for surgery and you know that. Is
is to save or better a life. Abortion is, by it's nature, strip away one
life for the convenience of another.

Abortion is simply a (frequently elective) medical procedure done for the
benefit of the only person involved - the woman.