Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!desjardins From: desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Live fetuses Message-ID: <508@h-sc1.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 14:58:48 EDT Article-I.D.: h-sc1.508 Posted: Wed Aug 7 14:58:48 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 23:35:28 EDT References: <399@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1654@mnetor.UUCP> <1407@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center Lines: 21 Sophie: > > Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. Rich: > The fact the the fetus requires the environment of a human being's body > to provide it with support tells me quite clearly that it is not alive. > If you disagree with that notion, fine. That goes against definitions of > life as we know it, but that's OK, the net is full of people who make > up their own definitions at whim. [FLAME OFF] This argument is a lot like the argument behind euthanasia (which, by the way, I am for). Someone who is totally dependent on another person/machine (i.e. mother or life support machine) for life is on the borderline of what we would call a living person. (At least this is true for me.) They're certainly not the same question, but I think they have something in common. I wonder if there is any correlation between those in favor of abortion on demand and those in favor of euthanasia. (this just occurred to me and I thought I'd let you all share in the excitement...) marie desjardins park