NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/29463

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-29 | 1.9 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29463 alt.birthright:149
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!news
From: Larry Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:23:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Nntp-Posting-Host: lamail.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 25

In  <adams.712421943@spssig>  [e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:
> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>
> >Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
> >testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
> >dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
> >the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
>
> My problem with deciding how I feel on this is the possible ramifications.
> Assume for a moment that fetal tissue is found to cure some horrendous
> disease.  Do you then support conception soley for provision of fetal
> tissue?  This creates lots of issues that I don't have any answers for...

Assume for a moment that it's possible to remove organs from dead people
and transplant them into living people.  Do you then support killing
people soley for provision of organ transplants?  Perhaps we'd better
not perform any organ transplants until we consider the possible
ramifications...

I realize this is not an exact analogy, but the point is that there's
a potential for saving people's lives and you'd rather waste the
currently available tissue while you worry about what might happen
should the demand some day exceed the supply.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)