dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/16/84)
> Or a doctor who performs abortions on not yet living fetuses. (If they're > living when can't they "live" outside of the womb? i) Birth involves a transfer of the fetus from inside the womb to outside the womb. Apparently, the child "comes to life" at some point in the process. ii) By this definition the brain is not living, since it cannot "live" outside of the head. Nor is the womb itself alive, since it cannot live outside of the head. iii) The argument is specious anyway. We can ask instead, can the fetus maintain its state outside the womb (seems to be the crux of the argument)? If the answer is no, then it changes its state. So there are two distinct states of existence for the fetus before and after removal from the womb. Rich strongly implies that the "after" state is death. In other words, it dies. But how can it die if it was not alive? If answer is yes, then the fetus is capable of maintaining its state. So it would appear, by Rich's definition, to be alive. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
rcd@opus.UUCP (07/17/84)
How the devil (oops:-) did this discussion leak out of net.abortion again? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.