Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> Jessica B <Jessicab@ziplip.com> wrote:
> >elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<3f0e376a.1977904@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
> >> It is a fetus.  It is not 'just' a blob of tissue, nor is it a human
> >> being.
> >
> >No doubt it is a fetus, in the medical terminology for these
> >things, but of course it is a human being.
> 
> According to the laws of states and nations worldwide a "human being"
> must have been born alive.

A plain lie since those laws contradict each other.

Afterall, if for example States' laws were all pro-abortion there would
have been no need for Roe vs. Wade. Since there is a 'need' for it (to some
people) you can guess the rest.

> 
> > Just because a
> >teenager isn't a baby doesn't mean it isn't a human being.
> 
> Gesundheit.

Wha'? Is this your way of avoiding admitting something that is true.

> 
> >If it isn't a human being, exactly what is it?
> 
> A human fetus.
> 
> Pay attention.

=> A human baby is not a human being... it's a human baby.

=> Since it *is* a human baby, it can't possibly be a human being, can it?

=> Just as a fetus cannot *possibly* be a human being. QED

Your arguments sound distinctly like circular reasoning, moron. I could use
them to deny that newborns are human beings.

> 
> > Just for
> >fun I looked in half a dozen dictionaries, and they all
> >pretty much defined "human" as meaning "of the speices
> >homo sapiens". If a fetus is not homo sapien, exactly what
> >speices is it?
> 
> You are very confused.  If my toe isn't human then what species is it?
> 
> Maybe you should look up "human being".

So if it is a member of the human species then it can reproduce with other
members of the human species - and only other members of the human species
(by the defn. of species).

So, tell us: How does a toe reproduce?

Methinks you're confusing nouns with adjectives. Still, a simple mistake
for a colossal idiot to make. That would be o.k. if only more of the people
reading this newsgroup were colossal idiots. Sadly for you, they're not.

> 
> >>  Give me a reason to ban abortion that is not based upon lies
> >> and does not ignore the humanity of the woman and I will support a
> >> total ban on abortion.
> >
> >I suppose the argument is fairly obvious and straightforward.
> >The situation is this: we have two innocent persons, the mother
> >and the fetus, whose self ownership is in conflict.
> 
> No.  The woman's body is hers.  Nobody else's.

And unborn children are not part of the woman's body.

> 
> > The fetus
> >has a right to own its own body and not have it ripped to pieces,
> 
> Fine, then the woman gets to have it removed intact.  It will die
> immediately anyway, but your argument no longer has any merit.

Then you're not pro-choice. "Pro-choice" says that all human beings get to
choose whether they are allowed to die.

Sorry, euthenasia for unborns is not voluntary unless they have a say in
the matter.

> 
> > The rights are
> >in conflict, how do you resolve that?
> 
> No, the rights are NOT in conflict because the fetus has no right
> to the woman's body.  nobody does.

The fetus is an innocent party. And, like it or not, it's the woman's
responsibility to take care of that child (by not smoking, drinking....
having an abortion...) just as she would be responsible for her born child.

> 
> >The abortion solution is to ignore the rights of the fetus,
> 
> Bullshit.  It has no rights over the woman.

Ah, but the woman also has no rights over the fetus's body. And, since the
situation is far more the result of the woman's actions I'd say that neatly
settles the argument.

> 
> None.
> 
> > The anti
> >abortionists ignore the rights of the mother entirely. But
> >there seems no middle ground.
> >
> >What is the solution that minimizes the total inconvenience and
> >deprivation of rights?
> 
> Abortion remains legal.

Let it be legal in California - where a nutter like you is from. But don't
impose your crap on the rest of country, asshole.

> 
> > (For surely that is the solution we
> >should seek.) The answer is obvious, is it not?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > In the absence
> >of significant medical risk to the mother, it is clear her
> >rights are significantly impacted with substantial discomfort,
> >for nine months. Killing the fetus deprives it of eighty years
> >of life. Requiring the woman to carry to term (with no further
> >obligations) is clearly the solution that causes the least
> >inconvenience and depravation of rights overall.
> 
> Really?
> 
> Then we are justified in stripping you of ALL your money, as well
> as your freedom and parts of your body in order to save the lives of
> others.
> 
> Rape is justified because depriving a possible child of its right to
> live obviously outweighs the "inconvenience" of rape.

Wanting to rape someone doesn't cause pregnancy. Come back when you've
finally figured things like that out for yourself. Otherwise, please don't
waste everyone's time.