Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf
From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Human beings
Message-ID: <420@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 06:58:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.420
Posted: Fri Jul 19 06:58:22 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 01:09:26 EDT
References: <392@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 75

In article Thomas Newton writes

>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.

Like the first trimester? Maybe in 2010, but not right now. Why don't I
just say that "As educational technology advances, we might be able to
teach Thomas Newton that a two week old fetus is a blob of tissue that
no doctor on this earth could keep alive without it's mother."

>If our medical technology was advanced enough,

...and it has...

>we might be able to synthesize the chemicals that he needs.

...and we can. So this:

>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.

is wrong.

>    DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)
>        We have no evidence for this other than rlr's assertions.

No, we have your assertions. I don't remember Rich making any similar
claims.

>[More of the same]
>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.

Neither does is say the fetus is alive.

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

I don't think he has to. Your arguments are full of misinterpretations
and logical holes. The whole thing is based on the idea that Rich made a
certain assertion and you never proved that he did. 

How's this:
Termination(X)     X no longer continues to exist
Permission(X,Y)  X gives permission for Y to live off X
Liveoffof(X,Y)   Y must live off of X

If Liveoffof(X,Y) & (NOT Permission(X,Y)) => Termination(X)

So:
If Liveoffof(Fetus,Mother) & (NOT Permission(Fetus,Mother)
						)=>Termination(Fetus)

And:
If Liveoffof(Rich,Plants) & (NOT
			Permission(Rich,Plants))=>Termination(Rich)

How can I talk about plant GIVING PERMISSION? Easily, many plants produce
fruit hoping that animals will eat it and carry the seeds away. We know
the apple tree doesn't mind us eating apples because when they are ready
to eat, they just drop off; it's as if the tree were saying,"Here, have
this." 

Similarly, if a woman "says" to the fetus,"Here use my body for nine
months." that's just fine, but I (and I think Rich) assert that she can
always refuse in as much as an apple tree could concevably (with a
little imagination) withold it's fruit from hungry animals.
-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"Don't get bogged down with details, just eat
     the stupid peice of paper."
        -Rev. Wang Zeep