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: Demarcation of life
Message-ID: <1686@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 13:48:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1686
Posted: Sat Sep 14 13:48:01 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 00:24:14 EDT
References: <306@gcc-bill.ARPA> <2378@ut-ngp.UTEXAS>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 22

> Oh, really?  You (and other anti-choice people) have hit a new low
> in misrepresentation with the statement that:
>     it [the fetus] will develop into a baby if left to its natural course.
> Pregnancy involves the _continuous_ transfer of material between
> the bodies of the fetus and its mother.  Thus it is precisely _not_
> "leaving" the fetus to anything.  If the placenta fails to transfer
> the proper materials between the two bodies, the fetus will die.
> If the mother's body cannot supply the proper materials in the
> requisite quantities to the fetus, it will die.  The choice that a
> pregnant woman faces is to aid the fetus or to remove it from her
> body.  There is nothing whatsoever of _leaving_ it to "its natural
> course" involved in this decision, because its "natural course"
> _requires the overt aid of her body_.  It is pure misrepresentation
> to suggest otherwise.  [KEN MONTGOMERY]

Bra-vo, Ken!  This is the very basis of the argument that the fetus is not
a viable independent autonomous entity, and thus clearly not a human being
in the sense that you and I are living breathing human beings not requiring
the use of the inside of a person's body for survival.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr