Re: More on avortion, children, human, life, etc (was: OT - "lie" vs "

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
 news:9cf77$4268586a$45491db9$1545@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote: 
<snip> 
>
> From Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary 2002...
>
> : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic
> structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usuall
y
> three months after conception to birth
>
> "A developing human"
>
> I realize that you're not going to be convinced of that - God Himself coul
d
> appear to you in a blazing smoke, and you'd say "But it's not a child unti
l
> it's born!"  But, realize that you are also never going to convince me tha
t
> it's not - so, these asides are not the best use of time on behalf of eith
er
> of us.
>

So, do you agree with that definition and agree that abortion of "thingies" 
(aka
foetus) before 3 months of gestation is OK?

..

Assuming you don't (or do) agree with the above, do you agree that the CURRE
NT
status - as stated by the Supreme Court in the US is that abortion during
"early" (whatever that means) stages of gestation is NOT "murder" and that,
therefore, as far as the current understanding of the "government" these are
 not
"humans" (children)?

***

Again, I don't think any of us will "convince" others of basic terminology
changes.   However, it is MY understanding that you believe that the "unborn
"
(at least at some stage) are "human children" and that I do NOT believe this
 to
be true - but am AWFULLY happy that I will never be gestating a
"pre-birth-thing-that will/might-become human" - and I won't even be the spe
rm
donor toward such a thing/person.  Therefore, the "ultimate" decision (wheth
er
legal or not) is VERY unlikely ever to be mine.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com