Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-ngp.UTEXAS
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Demarcation of life
Message-ID: <2390@ut-ngp.UTEXAS>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 22:46:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.2390
Posted: Mon Sep 16 22:46:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 07:29:28 EDT
References: <306@gcc-bill.ARPA> <2378@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> <1471@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 61

[Apologies to those who (justifiably) dislike multi-level references...]

>> >                       The natural result of conception
>> >is a baby.  Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with
>> >no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its
>> >natural course.  [BRIAN WELLS]
>> 
>> 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.  [KEN MONTGOMERY]
>
>It is obvious that the disagreement here results from two different
>meanings of the word "natural" being used.  [Matt Rosenblatt]

No.  The disagreement here has nothing to do with the definition of
the word 'natural'.  Rather, the disagreement here results from the
attempt by the anti-choice people to have us believe that rendering
aid to an entity is the same as leaving it to its natural course, in
other words: leaving it alone.  This contention is clearly false.

> [...]
>>  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_.  [KEN MONTGOMERY]
>
>What does "overt aid" mean?

Exactly what it says.  If the mother's body took no action to support
the fetus, it would die.  I meant the word 'overt' to stress the fact
that a pregnant woman is engaging in actions towards the fetus, not
simply being a passive vessel for it.

> Getting someone to abort her is an overt
>act, and results in removing the fetus from her body.  If she performs
>no overt act, there is an 80% chance she will have a live birth.

Horsepucky.  See above -- pregnancy is a continuous, overt action.

> Mr. Montgomery would make his argument more clearly if he would give us
>his definitions of "natural" and "overt."

I've already shown that the definition of 'natural' is irrelevant here,
and I have explained my use of 'overt', both above.

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU  [Internet, if the nameservers are up]


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com