home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
- From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
- Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.195847.6828@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
- X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
- of Denver for the Denver community. The University has neither
- control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
- Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
- Organization: None worth mentioning.
- References: <1992Dec29.182956.21402@ncsu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:58:47 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1992Dec29.182956.21402@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-
- [Rip it out and toss it away. It was junk anyway.]
-
- >Oh, I agree. But these pro-choice arguments are often based upon
- >factual differences between "the born and the unborn" which carry
- >no moral weight in themselves. Pro-choicers have stated that
- >the child is inside the woman, which is a fact. Why does this
- >fact carry moral weight? The child is a member of the human
- >species, but wouldn't you claim that this fact carries no moral
- >weight in itself?
- >
- Yes DODie, I would claim that membership of the fetus in the human
- species carries no moral weight. Glad to see you've finally posted
- something correct. Likewise (as has so often been pointed out) cancer
- cells are also gentic members of the human race. That also carries no
- moral weight to prevent them from being removed from the body by any
- necessary means.
-
- --
- Mark Cochran merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
- These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
- your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
- Ghost of Elvis. So there.
-