Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site abnji.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!abnji!jca From: jca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women,net.abortion Subject: Re: a pro abortion argument Message-ID: <256@abnji.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 10:42:20 EST Article-I.D.: abnji.256 Posted: Fri Feb 1 10:42:20 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 10:54:07 EST References: , <1907@burdvax.UUCP> Organization: ATTIS - Somerset, NJ Lines: 22 Xref: watmath net.politics:7306 net.women:4333 net.abortion:1168 >In article 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? No answer. Not at all. On certain occasions. There is a fundamental difference between a kidney dialysis machine/intra- venous feeding apparatus and a woman. If you don't believe me, look! :-) If I were wired up to somebody to keep him alive, it might be moral for me to stay, but I cannot be required to. By the same token, I am not legally required to intervene in a crime. I would not require or expect a woman to provide life support to another life form that she doesn't want. If she wants to do this, fine. If not, abort it.