Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn
From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Human beings
Message-ID: <392@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 20:16:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.392
Posted: Thu Jul 18 20:16:39 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 14:06:27 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 66

If we take Rich's assertions at face value:

    DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)
    DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother)
    Living(Mother)
    -----------------------------------------------
    not Living(Fetus)

then we must also come to the conclusion:

    DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)
    DependsUpon(Rich_Rosen, Plants)
    Living(Plants)
    -----------------------------------------------
    not Living(Rich_Rosen)

rlr's claim seems to be that DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother) is somehow special,
i.e. that fetuses cannot exist outside of the environment of the womb.  But
there are many cases where babies have been born prematurely (i.e. they are in
the same stage of development as fetuses still in the womb), and hospitals have
been able to care for them.  As medical technology advances, we have been able
to take care of babies at earlier and earlier stages of development.

An equally valid case can be made that DependsUpon(Rich_Rosen, Plants) is
special.  Without the oxygen and complex organic chemicals which he gets from
plants (either directly or indirectly), Rich Rosen would cease to function.
If our medical technology was advanced enough, we might be able to synthesize
the chemicals that he needs.  But at the present time, any attempt to remove
Rich Rosen from the support environment provided by plants and animals would
result in his death.

Most people would assert that "not Living(Rich_Rosen)" is FALSE.  Thus one of
the assumptions used to prove it must be wrong:

    Living(Plants)
        Trivially true.
    DependsUpon(Rich_Rosen, Plants)
        As shown above, Rich Rosen depends on plants for his
        continued existence -- in today's world, he wouldn't
        survive long without them.
    DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)
        We have no evidence for this other than rlr's assertions.
        The evidence against it is that it is the only remaining
        suspect in a list of assertions which can be used to prove
        a false conclusion.

Thus "DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)" is false.  But look at
what this does to the first proof:

    ---------first assertion deleted because it
             is false and false => any conclusion----------
    DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother)
    Living(Mother)
    ---------------------------
    DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother) & Living(Mother)
    (this can't be further reduced without extra clauses)

This just says that the fetus depends upon the type of environment that is
provided by the mother, and that the mother is alive.  It certainly doesn't
say that the fetus is not alive.

                                        -- Thomas Newton
                                           Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA

PS to rlr:  Let's see you try to get away with calling this sensationalistic
or saying that plants are not alive.