Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-cad.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!mjc
From: mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women,net.abortion
Subject: Re: a pro abortion argument
Message-ID: <278@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 21:01:10 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-c.278
Posted: Fri Feb  1 21:01:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 02:22:22 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.politics:7375 net.women:4381 net.abortion:1184

From: scgvaxd!dan@seismo (Dan Boskovich)
>> [analogy of fetus to brain-dead person]
>This argument is unacceptable and invalid. No one in their right mind
>would pull the plug on a "brain dead" person if the Doctor assured the
>relatives that in a matter of several weeks the patient would experience
>a complete recovery and live a healthy life

Ah, but what if the doctors said, "Yes, he'll recover in a few months, but in
the meantime you are going to have to provide blood, nutrients from your
body, constant attention, etc.  Oh, and if you had any other plans for the
next few years of your life, forget them.  And get rid of that glass of wine."
I think at this point the person being required to provide this assistence 
gets a say in the matter.  (How many legal cases have there been down the
line of "person X needs <substance, such as bone marrow, or organ> and Y is
the only person who can provide it safely (Y is a relative"?  I haven't heard
of one of these yet in which Y was *required* to come through with whatever X
needed.

I don't think the analogy breaks down as readily as you seem to think
(though, of course, all analogies have problems).

							-Dragon
-- 
UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg