Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetus = living organism (?????)
Message-ID: <1201@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 10:17:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1201
Posted: Fri Jul 12 10:17:42 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 13:23:37 EDT
References: <3026@decwrl.UUCP> <1185@pyuxd.UUCP> <804@ihlpg.UUCP> <1196@pyuxd.UUCP> <817@ihlpg.UUCP> <818@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 34

>>>>Human beings are alive.  Living organisms of OUR species, whose rights we
>>>>respect.  Fetuses (funny you forgot to bring them up) are not.
>> 
>>> Fetuses are living organisms of OUR species. 
>>
>>Then surely they don't need to "live" in a womb, they can be removed from
				  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Well, Rich, you're alive (or so it's been rumored), but surely you don't
> need to live in a oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere...how about some nice ammonia,
> just for a change of pace?  Why don't you volunteer to explore Jupiter
> for us (without a spacesuit, natch....)

The environment you are talking about that human beings need to live is NOT
the inside of another human being's body!!!  If YOU want to sustain the
removed fetus till it grows to term to the point at which it would be a
viable human being through some means of YOUR own choosing, then feel free
to do so.  But you have no right to impose the obligation of supplying that
environment for the fetus on someone else telling her she MUST use her own
body.

>>the body of a woman who doesn't want it inside of her, who might not want
>>(at this time, perhaps not at all) to allow it the privilege of using the
>>inside of her body as the place where it would become (eventually) a living
>>organism.  As you yourself asked in an earlier article, is there a biologist
>>in the house?  If you take it out and it ceases to function, it wasn't a
					   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If it was functioning, it must have been alive.

My car functions.  So does my terminal.  Functioning does not imply aliveness.
Aliveness is a much more specialized type of functioning.  That is why I
purposely chose the more general word "functioning".
-- 
Like a turban (HEY!), worn for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr