Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site kestrel.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!kestrel!king
From: king@kestrel.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Dependency)
Message-ID: <1252@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 20:26:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: kestrel.1252
Posted: Thu Sep 19 20:26:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 11:46:03 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <226@3comvax.UUCP>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 20
Summary: excellent example

In article <226@3comvax.UUCP>, michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:
> A pair of siamese twins are born.  Initially considered unseverable,
> they grow to adulthood.  Finally, surgical developments arrive which
> will allow *one* of the twins to survive separation, but the other
> (due to sharing of his liver, say) would die.  Do you claim, Rich,
> that the twin who would survive separation could, legally or morally,
> *force* his brother to accept surgery that would result in his death,
> simply because his brother is ``using'' his body without his consent?  

Excellent example.  EXCELLENT example.

No, I would feel sort of funny about sacraficing one twin.  So would a
lot of people.

They perform exactly this sort of surgery on newborn Siamese twins all
the time.  Surgeons who succeed at saving one are almost uniformly
applauded.  I have never heard a right-to-lifer complain.



-dick


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com