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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Survival of Tarzan proves pro-choicer's arguments
Message-ID: <1516@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 06:39:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1516
Posted: Sat Aug 17 06:39:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:03:21 EDT
References: <20@dscvax2.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 23

>>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]
>>Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

> A new born baby requires the attention and care of human beings for quite
> some time before it can survive independently - Tarzan excluded, of course.
> "life as we know it" - It seems you're watching a wee bit too much Star
> Trek, Mr. Rosen.
> Matt Noah

("A wee bit too much Star Trek"?  What is this man talking about, pray tell?)

Why you ignored the fact that the fetus uses the body of another human being
is beyond me.  Unless discussing this might have a negative impact on your
point?  It inhabits her insides.  Thus it is not physically autonomous, as it
is when it develops to term and is born.  I would think such a distinction
is very relevant, which may be why Mr. Noah glossed over it.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr