Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihnp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan
From: dolan@ihnp1.UUCP (Mike Dolan)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: organ replacement vs. child bearing
Message-ID: <221@ihnp1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Mar-84 14:48:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnp1.221
Posted: Tue Mar 27 14:48:52 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Mar-84 01:48:47 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 29


<line-eater food>

Sophie posed an interesting question a while back concerning the
difference between a woman bearing a child and replacement organs.

I don't have access to her articles, but I believe I can restate
her question pretty accurately. (Sophie, please feel free to 
correct or fine-tune this if necessary.)

	If a woman could be forced by law to bear a child until
	it was capable of living outside her womb, why couldn't
	individuals be forced to give up portions of their bodies
	as transplants, etc. to support the lives of others?

The major distinction between bearing a child and donating organs
and limbs is that in bearing a child, no part of the mother's body
is given up.  At the end of the child bearing, the mother's entire
body still remains intact.  When organs are donated, there is an 
actual physical loss to the donating individual.  This is true even
when the body may be capable of regenerating the lost part, such as
in the case of a blood transfusion.


Have a good day,
Mike Dolan
AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan