In article <1992Dec29.175354.2917@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> In article <C014v8.IGp@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
writes:
> I'll type slow so you can keep up Paul...
> It is a fetus, not a child.
> Repeat that until you understand the difference.
Gee, sounds just like mind-control. Do you also run a Chinese-style reeducation camp for wayward pro-lifers?
I get it - its "fetus" just because YOU say it is - common usage be damned.
> >> ...not given the legal right to use their parents' bodies without
> >> permission.
> >Here SJM raises the bogus concept that the government never dictates how
> >we use our bodies. In fact, it does as a matter of course.
> Here Paul raises the bogus concept that because the government
> dictates some things, it should dictate all things. Guess we know why
> you're from a .mil site eh Paulie?
Please point out exactly where I said, or even implied the word, "all".
I also like the very practical way that you catagorize people. Makes life easy. Wait, I have to turn down the marching music I always play in the background... there, that's better.
> Here Paulie demonstrates that he is incapable of differentiating between a
> pro-lifer and a fetus fanatic. Here's a clue Paulie. Pro-Life != forced
> birth.
I see, if one is against abortion he may have in mind just requiring the mother to keep her legs tightly crossed whenever the urge to push arises. I'm just not right brained I guess. Thanks for the clue.
> > I guess the millions of men let off the hook through the magic
> >of the abortionist's wand is just incidental gravy. Of course, men are
> >just disinterested bystanders who have no stake whatsoever in keeping
> >abortion legal. And of course the concept of mothers killing their
