🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Reed wrote:
> 
> In article <54m0jd$jm4@ratty.wolfe.net> _dmc@wolfenet.com 
   (Daryl dmc) writes:

> |>gandalf@sonic.net (Walter Hansen) wrote:
> |>Nice dodge. It does not follow that a fetus is a "being". It does
> |>not follow that a fetus is anything more than a cancerous grouth.

          =========================================================
> |Daryl dmc) writes:
> |Excuse me for butting in, but a fetus is *not* a cancerous growth. 
> |That is the most pathetic thing I've ever read.

          =========================================================
> Robert Reed wrote:
> It certainly isn't but only on the basis of outcomes, not in terms 
> of process.  Both fetal development and cancer demonstrate similar 
> accelerated cell division and coincident development of support 
> structures such as blood vessels, nerves, etc.  The only difference 
> is the diferentiation and organization associated with fetal develop-
> ment.  You may consider it pathetic, but it is medically accurate.

          =========================================================
Papa Jack comments:
It is still pathetic.  

You are clearly trying to divert attention away from the real issues
when you compare babies and cancers.
-- 
{               Papa Jack
{
{               http://www.express-news.net/papajack

	"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
	 men are created equal; that they are endowed by
	 their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
	 among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
	 happiness."          --Thomas Jefferson