🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr1.165918.2236@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Mar31.161857.12073@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>Exceptions being anencephalic babies born with no cerebrum, literally,
>>no brain, like the one in Florida which died yesterday after Fla. law
>>made the parents wait for it to die instead of harvesting organs.
>>Florida is populated by some really nutty crackers.
>
>No.  The *standard* legal definition of life says that anybody with
>any neural activity in the brain or brain stem is alive.  The law just
>hasn't caught up with anencephalic babies (aren't any other kind of
>anencephalitics; they die young) yet.
>
>Incidentally, imo a being without a brain who's breathing on their own
>is *alive* -- just not a person or a human being.
>
>-- 
>"Prejudice is the child of ignorance."                    - William Hazlitt
>
>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

I am puzzled by your sig. having pro-choice anti-Roe. These would seem
to be opposites in common usage. Please explain.

Also the problem I was citing about Florida is that they don't have
such a definition of brain death anyway. That was the reason that they
couldn't terminate. And an EEG doesn't trace brain stem activity,
which was all the child had. Like I said, Florida has some nutty
crackers in it.           - Richard Steven Walz