> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:04 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex > > DanM wrote: > > > > 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. > > I'll point this out only once, but it is applicable to various parts of > your post: You seem to be arguing this in the framework of the US abortion > debate, and you seem to be expecting me to do the same. I am not sure > why.-
Because questions about human rights before birth are, inherently, questions concerning abortion. They don't affect what happens after birth. > I was asking questions I consider worth asking, to ascertain just what JDG > thinks. But, or so I feel, you perceived these as the standard pro-choice > arguments. I could be wrong but that seems to be the most valid reason for > why I can't understand some parts of your answers. OK, it may be coincidental that you use the exact same arguments that pro-choice people do. But, I cannot understand the > Now, moving on to the quoted text: Dan, just what *could* be a 'pro-choice > movement for infants'? What is the choice here? To treat them well or not? The choice would be to allow new mothers to kill their infants. Some do, and they are charged with murder. In other cultures, such as ancient Rome, the patriarch of the family had the right of life and death over every member of his family. > > 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. > > You lost me somewhere there. I have no idea what your point is. Surely you > are not advocating that a woman goes through an unwanted pregnancy to give > birth to a child who might be killed 10 days later if the Right-to-Lifers > don't deliver? I mean, why? So the child has at least a chance to live. Think of the pro-life group as an advocacy group for those who cannot speak for themselves. The most critical right of any human being is the right to life. If someone has no right to stop another from killing them, then they have no rights at all. >So that the Right-to-lifers have the chance to > do something worthwhile? Why does the society, or that mother or that > child owe them so much? No-one owes pro-lifers them anything. The thesis is that the mother and society owe the child at least a chance at life. For a right-to-life person, every child has an inalienable right to life. The only possible exception is when their right to life conflicts with the right to life of the mother. The mother's health is important, of course, but not as critical as the child's life. One would wish, of course, to choose both, but when push comes to shove, the right to life predominates. I'll use pro-life language here, to illustrate the point. In a society, the right to life is the paramount right. No one has the right to kill another person. In particular no-one has the right to kill innocent life in cold blood. That's what abortion is, the cold blooded killing of innocence. The scenario I proposed was a "half-a-loaf" thought. If it is impossible to stop all murder, it is still worthwhile to stop some. And, with this scenario, the right-to-life people have at least a chance to save every child's life. A chance to save a human life is better than no chance to save a human life. Again, to be clear, the rights I am discussing are the rights of the child to life. The pro-life group is an advocacy group for the rights of others...the rights of unborn human beings to live. >Try as I might, I can see *no* sense in that > hypothesis. Did my explanation help? > > Now, I admit, I am guessing that you don't make the same argument with > > respect to the legality of infanticide. > > What? That they should be killed if the parents don't promise to take good > care of them within 10 days of birth? Hell, no. Not when I come from a > society and polity which has been fighting *against* female infanticide > for decades. The same argument refers to the right of the parent choose to kill their children.... >So not only is infanticide illegal, we no longer depend on > the promises of the parents either. Currently, we are paying parents of > girls a small lump sum at birth, monthly stipends for their daughters' > food, two meals in school and a daily sum for attending school, and > setting aside a fund for their marriage expenses. The taxpayers are paying > for it, and willingly. For these are the biggest problems when it comes to > assuring a decent life for the girl child: that the parents don't kill her > because they worry about her dowry, that her parents feed her, and that > they send her to school. All good things to do. I'm glad your country does this. In contrast, abortion is legal in India. If one accepts the idea that both abortion and infanticide is the murder of children, then abortions are exactly as wrong as infanticide. My point is that the difference in the laws indicate a difference in the perceived morality of abortion and infanticide. I don't know anyone who is pro-choice concerning infanticide. I know many pro-choice people on abortion. I would argue that those who > > > 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? > > Well, I can see no way on ensuring that all pregnant women report their > pregnancies, and their unwillingness to be pregnant, to someone who might > stop them from the abortion attempts. So, as far as I can see, the choice > is between losing one life or two. But, when abortions were illegal and back alley in the US, every indication was that they were less frequent than after they were legalized. Thus, the occasional woman who dies in an abortion is more than outweighed by the massive numbers of children that are saved. The parallel > > > 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. > > Umm, Dan, that is not an assumption, that is a fact. There *is* a > difference between a zygote in a petri dish, and one implanted inside a > uterus. A difference between a zygote and a 4 month foetus, a difference > between the latter and a seven month foetus, one between the latter and a > new born baby, another between the latter and a toddler....right until the > difference between an old man and a dead man. OK, a significant moral difference. There are differences between men and women, for example. There are differences in intelligence between people. We are all different. One of the ideas that came from the Enlightenment is that "all men are created equal." That concept means that the differences in intelligence, race, religion, age, are superficial differences when discussing human rights. We are all endowed with equal rights (most think that the use of the word "men" was not intended to exclude women as having no rights)..no matter how different we are. The pro-life axiom is that the differences between all the stages of life you mention are superficial with respect to human rights. What is critical is that all the stages of life that you mention are stages of life of human beings with full human rights. The pro-choice axiom is that, before birth, there are no human rights, and after birth a full set. > > Again, I may be surprised by your views on the treatment of > > children.... > > If this had been written by anyone else, I'd be wondering how sheltered a > life they had led. But since I know what your wife does, I can only assume > that you are not refering to my statement that kids can be, and are, > horrifically abused, or abandoned, or killed, or hurt. So what are you > refering to? I'm referring to the my view that kids who are in that position should not "be put out of their misery" by mercy killing. My wife, for example, was sexually abused as a child. One of our extra daughters is the child of two drug addicts, was abused throughout her life, and was thrown out of the house to live in a car when she was a teenage. Yet, for all of their suffering, they are wonderful people...and the thought of anyone "putting them out of their misery" is anathema to me. I'm sure it's also anathema to me. The same is true for me with crack babies, or babies born with AIDS. Mercy killing of these babies is, in my ethical system, wrong. From a pro-life stance, abortions are mercy killings, not really distinguishable from killing crack babies or AIDS babies with ODs of morphine. > > 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. > > Well, all emotionally healthy folks would in any case. What I find > interesting here is the use of the term 'long full life'. What do you mean > by that Dan? If I'm not mistaken, this notion ties in which the sentence > of mine which started this entire conversation between us: 'Who is going > to do what do ensure that the unwanted babies are nurtured properly?' Even people who have been abused as children have a chance at a long full life. They certainly do have a greater chance of an early death. They also have the chance of a long miserable life. But, with adults who have worked through the issues of parental abuse to live good, productive, fulfilling lives > > 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. > > See the first paragraph of this mail. You are assuming my positions, > simply because I am questioning JDG's position. Actually, I'm aware that you did not state what your position was. I was discussing the framework of the questions you proposed. I was trying to illustrate that, from a pro-life position, the questions you ask are nonsensical. The way I tried to illustrate this was by showing how they looked when referring to an area where most are pro-life (including I think everyone on this list) infanticide. I hope this helps clarify things. If not, just yell. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
