home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!rtnmr.chem.yale.edu!rescorla
- From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
- Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
- Message-ID: <1992Sep12.011938.25137@cs.yale.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
- Organization: Rescorla for himself.
- References: <1992Sep10.232909.10951@cs.yale.edu> <1992Sep12.010504.880@noao.edu>
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:19:38 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <1992Sep12.010504.880@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
- >From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
- >> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
- >> I would suggest that this is dubious at best. Typically, cannibalism
- >> is viewed as EATING human flesh.
- >Mere consumption is an acceptable definition to me.
- Dubious, very dubious.
-
- >> However, if we extend it this far, we've clearly included organ
- >> transplantation and I think arguably blood transfusions. To do so
- >> effectively robs the term "cannibal" of any shock value.
- >
- >With organ transplantation and blood transfusions, you have willing or
- >dead doners (who've already indicated they want to donate anyway).
- >
- >With fetal tissue, it's killing, stealing, and consuming, and that's all.
- I don't see that the consentual status of the tissue provider
- is relevant to whether it is cannibalism or not.
-
- So, Ms. Forgach, it seems to me that you have just defined
- receiving an organ donation as cannibalism. It's a natural
- consequence of your definition. Wouldn't you agree?
- -Ekr
-
-
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S) rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
- Former chemist now CM400 mechanic ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
- I will hack Unix for food.
-