DanM wrote: > > And are there any acceptable exceptions? Like danger to the mother's > > health? For the doctor *is* bound to consider his patient's well-being > > first, and the unborn baby hasn't hired the doctor... > > > > Also, once, if, the abortion rates go down, who does what to ensure > > that the unwanted born babies are nurtured properly? > > Well, the unwanted ones could be humanely killed after 10 days, like the > ASPCA does.
Eh? But what happens to he right to life from the moment of conception then? Does that right end after birth? > Now, I know that's a sarcastic...but the sarcasm wasn't really aimed at > you. The purpose of it is to illustrate how different fundamental > assumptions result in different reasonable statements. But wasn't the fundamental assumption here each individual's right to life? Even *before* they can take care of themselves? How does that change just because the baby is out of the uterus? And babies can't take care of themselves - they still need nurturing, especially for the first couple of years. And in the absence of that nurturing, they can die. Or receive crippling physiological and/or psychological injuries. > So, I don't think it is helpful to make arguments based on one's own > axiom set and then expect them to sound "reasonable" to someone who > holds a different axiom set. Could you please explain the bit about different axiom sets? Is it because I think that the right to life is enjoyed even after birth and JDG was just talking about until birth? That's not different axiom sets, Dan. That is just a difference in the length of time we are considering. Everything else is the same - the individual, and his/her right to life. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
