Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: \"Words mean what I pay them to mean . . .\" Message-ID: <419@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 01:42:24 EDT Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.419 Posted: Sun Aug 11 01:42:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 03:09:50 EDT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 14 > Alive may be well defined. However the discussion about carrots, bacteria, > etc being alive leads me to believe that the definition of alive has very > little to do with the issue of abortion. The only reason we were on the 'alive' issue at all is that Rich Rosen kept insisting that fetuses are not alive despite biology to the contrary. If you believe that ALIVE(fetus) = ALIVE(rock) = FALSE, you don't need to grapple with the real issues; since non-living things don't have rights, you can immediately jump to the conclusion that abortion is OK. But the problem with this argument is that the fetus IS a living thing, and so you do need to grapple with the real issues after all. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA