At 07:29 AM 2/12/01 EST, Tom Beck wrote:
><< Just before this segment, however, it is revealed that Truman was cast
>because he was one of three unwanted pregnancies that happened to be born
>at the critical start date. In other words, Truman could have been
aborted.
>>>
>
>I didn't get this sense at all. There was nothing to indicate that the
others
>would be aborted. For one thing, they were all pretty close to full-term,
and
>he just happened to be the one born at the right time.
Consider it this way.
The Hollywood producer approaches three women with an unwanted pregnancy.
He offers each of them $1million to carry the child to term. One of them
will become the star of his show, and the other two will be given up for
adoption.
Thus, the woman is forced with the choice:
a) Abort the child
b) Accept $1 million and a 1/3rd chance that her child will be the slave of
a Hollywood producer, having an otherwise comfortable life.
My problem is that if you think that a woman has a right to do "A", how can
you argue that she does not have the right to do "B."
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of isntitutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
