Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!druxo!nap
From: nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: re: re: a pro-abortion argument
Message-ID: <790@druxo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 15:45:26 EST
Article-I.D.: druxo.790
Posted: Wed Jan 30 15:45:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jan-85 02:26:05 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 27


This is in response to an article that I failed to save.  It said something
to the effect that prior to 28 weeks, the brain activity of a human fetus
was not that of homo-sapiens; hence, couldn't we abort the fetus just as we
may "pull the plug" when a person has been pronounced brain dead.

My reply:

If it isn't homo-sapiens, what is it?  I mean, it has to be something...if
it is the brain activity of a dog, that would be one thing.  But if it is
the brain activity of a homo-sapiens fetus, although different from an adult
homo-sapiens, I don't see that your suggestion differs much from any of the
other suggested criteria.

The other problem that I have with this proposal is that the criteria for
deciding to pull the plug is not just "brain dead," but *irreversibly*
brain dead.  In the case of the human fetus, it is highly likely that the
the "reversal" of the apparent "brain deadness" is just a matter of time.

It seems to me that if one accepts the criteria for the fetus, it would be
logical to accept pulling the plug on someone whom the doctors said showed
no current brain activity, but probably would within some relatively short
period of time, if it was convenient for the heirs or the spouse or
whoever.

Nancy Parsons
AT&T ISL