XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
      
   Thanks. So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the mother still   
   could do anything she wants with the neonate   
   but that, in your view, some things she might do would be wrong. Is that   
   correct?   
      
   "Ivan Gowch"  wrote in message   
   news:im5ctvoj4cp3h170f5i0h06jvjj4qlmcc6@4ax.com...   
   > On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:35 GMT,  wrote:   
   >   
   > ==>You said earlier, "Until a fetus leaves the womb   
   > ==>and breathes on its own it is, IMO, the sole property   
   > ==>of its host, the mother, and no one else should   
   > ==>have anything to say about its disposition."   
   > ==>   
   > ==>This implies, by the rules of logic, that you believe   
   > ==>that if a fetus is alive outside the mother's body but still attached   
   by the   
   > ==>cord then it is permissible to kill it.   
   > ==>   
   > ==>Is this what you believe or did you misstate your position?   
   >   
   > If the neonate is grossly deformed or otherwise   
   > so damaged that its quality of life would be   
   > catastrophically impaired, I would say, yes,   
   > it is permissible.   
   >   
   > I would hope that this type of occurrence would be   
   > so rare as to be virtually unknown.  But frankly, it's   
   > a scenario so disturbing I really don't want to   
   > think about it.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)