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.rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (07/18/84)
> 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. At the point when it is no longer "parasitic" in the strict medical sense: meaning, an entity incapable of living on its own, requiring the sustenance given by the body of the woman in which it resides. A woman has as much right to choose to continue the nourishing/sustaining process that would eventually mold the entity into a living human being as she has to choose not to. > 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. First, an anatomy lesson: the womb does not "live" in the head :-) Next, you are comparing the request for a removal of an implanted growing entity with the removal of a bodily organ. Most people do not wish the opportunity to have their brains removed. (Those that do watch television evangelists as a means of accomplishing this :-) > 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? Please don't put words in my mouth. It smacks of fascistic propagandistic technique. >> Or a doctor who performs abortions on not yet living fetuses. (If they're >> living when can't they "live" outside of the womb? [ROSEN] I used the word "live" in quotes for a very good reason. For an entity that fails to adhere to the requirements for what we call "living", the word "live" is inappropriate. > If answer is yes, then the fetus is capable of maintaining > its state. So it would appear, by Rich's definition, to > be alive. But fetuses removed from the womb and left in the "real world" will invariably die. If there should be a means to sustain a fetus such that it could develop into an independent living human being (NOT a deformed semi-vegetable sustained and kept alive solely because of someone's arbitrary desire to "sustain life at all cost", even to the detriment and pain of that which is sustained), then that's another story. But, again, don't try to impose the responsibility for supporting that fetus (that would eventually come to term as a child) on the woman from whose body it was removed. She didn't want to bring the fetus to term, YOU did, YOU take responsibility for it! It would seem that the solution described above, where a fetus could be brought to term outside of the body of the woman in which it was conceived, is viable to all except one group: those who oppose abortion solely because they feel the need to impose their ideas of personal responsibility on other people and the need to "punish" those who experience unwanted pregnancies. -- This unit humbly and deeply apologizes for having and expressing opinions. This will not occur again. (BEEP) Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr