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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!mjc
From: mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: responsibilty issue
Message-ID: <327@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 20:42:16 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-c.327
Posted: Wed Apr 24 20:42:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 23:41:49 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 17

>Or if you can come up with a life-support system that allows babies to
>spend their "pre-birth" months in an incubator, do so.

If you want to have the fetus kept alive so badly after its removal from the
host, feel free to make the technology available.  But don't try to suggest
that pro-choicers have that obligation.  We're the ones who don't believe the
fetus has rights in excess of the mother, remember?

I'm willing to bet that if you provide a technology that keeps the fetus
alive and does not impose any excess medical risk on the mother, and you pay
the extra costs (note: *you*, not society), most if not almost all women will
use that technology.  But it seems to me that the ball's in your court.

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