Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!spp1!johnston From: johnston@spp1.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Re: re: when does life begin Message-ID: <135@spp1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 11:50:52 EST Article-I.D.: spp1.135 Posted: Mon Dec 10 11:50:52 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:44:11 EST References: <122@spp1.UUCP> <1102@ut-ngp.UUCP> <129@spp1.UUCP> <10191@watmath.UUCP> Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 94 > > > > > > Being provided with shelter by *someone else's* body is one H*LL of a > > > lot more that being provided a crib, etc.! Drinking out of a bottle > > > and breathing the atmosphere are very different from pulling nutrients > > > and oxygen direct from *someone else's* bloodstream! > > > -- > > > Ken Montgomery > > > > I don't see how they're very different. If you look at the sidelines of most > > professional football games you see very alive people pulling in oxygen > > from a tank and intravenous feedings are commonplace. How a person obtains > > nutrients and oxygen does not make that person dependent on the source and > > the reason for the original posting was to refute a statement on the > > fetus's alledged biological dependence on the mother. > > > > Mike Johnston > > BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS ....... as BOGUS approaches aleph-37 infinity !!!! > > I defy you, "Mike Johnston", to cut the umbilical cord of any unborn less > than 6 months from conception and let it live by oxygen tank & intravenous > alone. > I wouldn't dare, since I'm not qualified. But I don't need to since it's been done already. If you insist I'll provide facts gladly concerning the birth of a boy who must be in his teens by now. He was born prematurely at 20 WEEKS. Of course he needed an oxygen tent but live he did. The trouble with setting a time like you did arbitrarily is that not only can that time be violated (as it did without you being aware of it) but as we advance further medically there doesn't seem to be a limit. Many people swore at one time it was humanly impossible to run a mile in less than four minutes. > The FACT remains, despite your concentratedly intense wanderings in mindless > dreamland, that a fetus in (say) the first trimester is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY > dependent on the host organism (i.e., mother). No giving of stupid examples > about football players with gas masks changes this unalterable fact. Let me first express my sadness tht issues can't be discussed without resorting to insults. There is such a temptation to respond in kind but I'm reminded that anyone can do so but not all are possible of expressing their views clearly and reasonably without undercutting their opponents. I prefer to sharpen my skills in the latter mode and just swallow hard. My point was biological dependence not nurturing. And again there is no baby alive today who is not dependent on someone for nurturing. > > So stop wasting my time with this inane dumbness about a fetus being > bologically independent of its mother. If the mother dies, the fetus dies, > and that is all there is to that !!!! > We must be disagreeeing on what biological dependence means. Biological dependence means being dependent on certain biological processes of the mother not the dependence on food, warmth, and shelter. If a mother dies as she is alone with her child in a forest, the child will certainly die. > In fact, if you want to get biological, there is no form of biological > relationship more dependent that between mother and fetus! Why, if a fetus > were biologically independent, mother could consume heroin, thalidomide and > marijuana 3 times a day in massive quantities for 9 solid months during > pregnancy and the baby would be as healthy as the child of an Amish woman > who took great care of herself. > If a nursing mother were to do the same with her born child, the child would certainly have impaired health. Maybe this whole disagreement is based on askew definitions. Do you, per chance, consider a live born baby biologically dependent on anyone. > And as far as this nonsense being bandied about the net in regard to > baby not sharing genetic material with mom & dad is concerned, the reader > is directed to consign those articles to the trashbin. Again, the screamingly > obvious counter-example will suffice. Is the race of a person controlled by > genes ?? --Yes!! How about eye colour ? --again yes. Therefore, if a white > man impregnates a white woman, what colour will the child be ? --white, of > course! Obviously, the child is completely dependent of mom & dad for the > genetic makeup. After all, where else would junior's genes come from, Levi's? > > > Leaving 'til the stupidity filter gets ported to unix, > > I remain > CD Shaw No one I've heard is refuting that a fetus shares genetic material with its parents. This isn't spontaneous generation. The point is that a fetus's genetic makeup is absolutely unique. It is not the same as either parent. Many would have you believe that a fetus was nothing more than a growth of cells attached to the mother. If this were the case, its genetic makeup would be identical to the mother. Mike Johnston