Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site burdvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!psuvax1!burdvax!bnapl
From: bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women,net.abortion
Subject: Re: a pro abortion argument
Message-ID: <1907@burdvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 12:42:15 EST
Article-I.D.: burdvax.1907
Posted: Tue Jan 29 12:42:15 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Feb-85 01:14:42 EST
References: <cbscc.4662>
Reply-To: bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht)
Organization: Burroughs Corp. - SDG/Devon
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.politics:7284 net.women:4321 net.abortion:1151
Summary: 

In article <cbscc.4662> lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>By Mike Gray:
>
>My position on abortion is that the fetus, like a 'brain dead' person
>on life support equipment, is a dead human being (for a time) on life
>support (i.e. the mother).
>
Why is a fetus like a 'brain dead' person?  Could it be that a fetus is
more like a person on kidney dialysis or one that requires intravenous
feeding because of esophageal cancer?  You certainly wouldn't terminate the
life of one of these simply because they require some form of 'life support', 
would you?  Remember, the main reason why people want to 'unplug' individuals 
who are brain dead is because there is supposedly no hope of recovery from 
the affliction.  That is certainly not the case for an unborn child.  If 
given the opportunity, in the majority of cases, the fetus would grow to 
maturity.

-- 
Tom Albrecht 		Burroughs Corp.
			...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl