Re: Defining Human

Harvey Newstrom (
Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:54:04 -0500

Reilly Jones wrote:
> I read recently where China has 53 million missing females, they are
> statistically expected from normal demographic trends but simply not there.
> Guess why they're not there. They were not referred to as missing "fetal
> tissue" or missing "viable tissue mass" or missing "clumps of tissue" or
> missing "small lumps of biological matter." They are missing women. I
> can't think of anything being more "anti-woman" than this capital fact.

You think something is true just because you read it. It is an expected
value predicted by a statistical formula. You "guess why they're not
there", and then you refer to this conclusion as "capital fact"? This
is not a very convincing argument. Some people could dismiss this as an
unverified claim.

> As to what Roe v. Wade legalized, I'll stand by my original post, this is
> the law of the land. "In America, abortion is legal on demand right
> through nine months, in fact, right up to having the baby 2/3 out of the
> birth canal on its due date."

This is plain wrong. Abortion laws restrict abortions by trimester.
Please reference a specific law that allows abortion on the due date
while the baby is 2/3 out of the birth canal.

> if you live in America, you can legally find a place that will abort your
> child on its due date with the child 2/3 out of the birth canal for *any
> reason whatsoever*. Even the doctor who recently testified before Congress
> that partial birth abortions were rare and primarily done to protect the
> life of the mother, later recanted his testimony out of shame, and admitted
> that they were far more prevalent than the orthodox press dared report and
> that 90% were elective, i.e., on demand.

Oh, you're talking about the rare situation where you must kill the
mother to save the child, or kill the child to save the mother. This is
not legal abortion on demand on the due date. This is a medical
emergency. You choose to call not killing the mother in favor of the
child a form of abortion.

If doctors lie and perform this procedure by falsly claiming the
mother's life was in danger, this does not make it a legal procedure in
the U.S. This would be a criminal act not protected by the law. The
fact that it happens and is not prosecuted does not make it legal.

Ninth month abortions are not legal, even though you argue that they
might as well be. You can't legally find a place that will do this for
you, even if you can easily find such a place with little risk of
prosecution. Roe vs. Wade did not legalize what you discribe, even if
what you are discribing is actually happening in the same clinics that
are legalized by Roe vs. Wade.

I respect your right to argue for your viewpoint, but you must realize
that you are exxagerating for effect, and that what you are claiming is
not literally and 100% accurate. This causes objective observers to
distrust your logical assertions.

Harvey Newstrom <>
PGP 5.5 Fingerprint:  F746 7A20 EB7D 27BA 80A5  4473 D8E1 6A54 1EB0 56F7
PGP Public Key available from <ldap://>