soc.women

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:39:23 -0700,
@ wrote:

>On Aug 4, 2:16 pm, elcoy...@ (Paul Anderson) wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 09:37:34 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >True, but a fetus is NOT a child, and not a Person.
>>
>> A father is one who a begotten a child. A mother is one who has given
>> birth to a child. Without the birth, there is no father and no
>> mother. There is a father-to-be and a mother-to-be. How can you
>> require permission of something that does not exist?
>
>How about by using common sense? What you just typed is consistent
>and logical. And utterly divorced from reality. Yours is the kind of
>logic used to justify abortions right in the delivery room.

No one, other than Pro-Lifers, try to "justify abortions right in the
delivery room."

>Residing in someone's womb is not equivalent to not existing, Paul.
>It exists, it just exists inside the mother's body instead of
>outside.

Residing in the imagination is not equivalent to not existing.
Imaginary beings don't count. There is no child in the womb no matter
how much you try to pretend there is. What is in the womb is not an
existing person.