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