--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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."
But, we do it all the time. People are not required to make sacrifices so
that others may live. Yet, they are not able to offer a deal: I'll donate
my bone marrow for you if and only if you agree to be my slave.
John, from reading your posts over the last few years, I don't picture you
being interested in seeing other points of view. While I'm not pro-choice,
I live with a pro-choice wife. I can see her point of view as well as my
own.
Dan M.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
