--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't plan on writing on abortion. But, this > post was so stident, I felt I had to.
:( I didn't plan on writing about it either, but when an issue I see as dreadfully complex (and no happy ending) is repeatedly placed in purely Black and White terms, I feel compelled to comment. [I wrote] > > Not specks of potential humanity (some of whom > > wouldn't make it to term anyway - current best > > estimate is that ~75% of all concepti fail to > reach > > viability [data previously posted]), but already > > living, breathing, feeling children. > > The point of the pro-life people is not that fetuses > are specks of > potential humanity; it is that they are as human as > you or I. The problem > with defining humanity in terms of functionality is > that a lot of humans > would fail the test if they fall below certain > functional levels. True. Frex, would I advocate killing (lethal injection, say) a comatose stroke victim who best medical judgement and experience calls "essentially terminal?" No. Would I advise withholding nutrition and drugs, except what seemed needful for comfort? Yes. If on a ventilator, is stopping mechanical breathing ethical from a medical POV? Yes. > Breathing seems to be the key rule for the law. > Killing a late term fetus > is legal, killing a 2 month premature infant is not. > Abortion is, indeed, a > complicated issue because the usual arguement for > not killing another > human...just walk away, is impossible. But, I am > very suspicious of the > right to kill being argued as a fundamental human > right. At times, it is > necessary, but calling it reproductive rights > without even discussing the > moral implications is not helpful (you didn't do > this, I know). I agree that it has moral implications, which cannot be ignored. > > My view on child abusers has also been outlined > > previously, and is severe to the point of capital > > punishment. Beating, sodomizing and starving a > > first-grader is not within multiple orders of > > magnitude of aborting a 10-week fetus. > > > > Not Even Close. > > What about an newborn? Is that even close? If so, > why? Yes; the difference is ~ 30 weeks gestation and - by the 'reason-of-law' you note above - breathing. As well as on-going torture. What I failed to make clear in that post is that I find the exclusive/excessive focus on abortion a diminishment of the child abuse problem. IIRC, the recent in-the-news story about 3 children in New Jersey(?) found that the case worker had between 50-100 cases, when the recommended load (per month, IIRC) is 17-20. As a society, if we are not willing to pay for real intervention - or take the children away from the perpetrators - these 'incidents' will continue. As I think I mentioned before, I have friends in the special education field who have had to get counseling and antidepressants to cope with the abused kids they see - and report, only to have the children repeatedly turned back to the abusers. Burns. Non-medical maggots. Not fed for the weekend (including long holidays). These are not made-up scenarios. I've had to call both Child and Adult Protective Services in my work. When I observed what seemed to me warning signs of potential abuse, I've tried to get the parents hooked into Social Services, hoping to avert future need for Protective Services. I'll bet any teacher, clinician or pastor/priest could say the same. Sorry for being strident - I'll try to curb it. Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
