> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex > > 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?
No, absolutely not. But, I've heard this argument many times with respect to abortion and have not heard it once with respect to infanticide. There is no pro-choice movement with respect to infants. Let's assume, for arguments sake, that abortion and infanticide are considered equally wrong....but that letting unwanted children live is also wrong. Since fewer children would die if you gave the children a chance to be born and selected, then that would be the lesser evil. Right to life people would then have the challenge of finding people ready to adopt within 10 days. That rule would at least give pro-life people a chance to save their lives. Now, I admit, I am guessing that you don't make the same argument with respect to the legality of infanticide. Also, referencing the damage to women in back alley abortions as a counter to ending abortions, if the right of an unborn child was equal to the right of the woman who carried that child, then shouldn't protecting the child against getting killed be more important than ensuring that it is safe for the mother to kill her child? > But wasn't the fundamental assumption here each individual's right to > life? Even *before* they can take care of themselves? Absolutely. In a sense, I'm arguing that your statements tacitly assume that there is a significant difference in the state before and after birth. Again, I may be surprised by your views on the treatment of children....and I don't believe I can tell you what you think. I'm just using the general principal that if A and B are equivalent, then a statement that is correct when A is the subject is also correct when B is the subject. >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. It doesn't. That's why it was a sarcastic statement....I don't really mean it. But, if I had a choice between certain death and a chance at a long full life ahead of me I'd take the latter. I assume most folks would. > 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. The fundamental axiom difference is this: the pro-life position holds that fetuses are humans with human rights. The pro-choice position holds that they are not. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
