"John D. Giorgis" 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."
I didn't realize anyone here was arguing this..
-j-
