Dana
>The last part of your argument is a non sequitur.
>
>The fetus was intended to fully develop into a baby.
>Hence when a mother has a miscarriage, which is defined as the
>spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable, it is quite
>logical to offer condolences on the loss of a child.
>One is not offering condolences for the loss of the fetus, one is
>offering condolences for the loss of the potential for child.
>
>This is not logically related, nor can it be compared to intentionally
>aborting a fetus.
>
>-Gel
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Stanley
>
>There is also a double standard here, when some people
>argue for abortion, they claim that the fetus is not a child, but then
>when
>they get the news that their sister/cousin/friend just had a
>miscarriage,
>they rush over to confort them when they lost their baby. If it's not a
>baby, you should tell them on the phone, "hey, toughen up. It's not a
>baby,
>it's just a collection of cells" yeah, right.
>
>--
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 7.0.245 / Virus Database: 263.1.0 - Release Date: 6/4/2004
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
