Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Human beings
Message-ID: <1259@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Jul-85 12:32:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1259
Posted: Sat Jul 20 12:32:27 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 06:25:41 EDT
References: <392@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 72

> 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)

Depending on is very different from "feeding off of while inhabiting the
inside of a body", a person's body.  Plants and other living things are part
of a world biosphere.  The "biosphere" of the fetus is a human being's body,
and if she doesn't want it in there it's her right to have it removed.

> 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.

So?  If a woman chooses to have that fetus removed, are YOU going to be the
one to wean it into humanhood using this technology.  This technology is not
quite with us yet, but I'd live to see the day when it comes, not just because
it will eliminate the need for so-called "unnecessary convenience abortion",
but it will also force the anti-abortionists to put their money where their
mouths are.  Although it always seems they want the woman to "take
responsibility" (really to "accept blame" from someone else's impositional
religious dogma).

> 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.

Again, the support environment you speak of is the world biosphere.  In the
case of a fetus, the entire biosphere is a person's body, which it is using
for its own purposes and parasitically drawing sustenance from the woman.
If the woman WANTS the fetus to stay there and grow into a child, great!
If not, who are you to tell her how her body is to be used?

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

And I showed which one above.

> Thus "DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)" is false.

The way you manipulatively phrased it, sure.

> 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.

Look up parasite.  Do some reading.  Instead of just asserting.

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

Nyah, nyah to you too.  I didn't need to.  What a babyish mode of arguing.
-- 
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr