On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 08:36:00AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> 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."
>
John,
Are you just being argumentative, or are you really so unfamiliar with
the points of view of pro-choice people?
Almost everything in the abortion debate comes down to the ethics of
whether a fetus has an intrinsic right to continue. If someone believes
the fetus does not have such an intrinsic right, but believes that a
boy does have the intrinsic right to continue, then the answer to your
question follows quite easily.
Also, your statement that some life is always better than no life seems
bizarre. By that logic, why don't you go around impregnating (raping if
necessary) every anti-abortion woman that you meet? The answer is that
the crux of the argument is as I have stated it above, not as you have
stated it.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
