Again, with the responding-to-a-post-withour-reading-the-entire-thread thing; but it could take days for me to get through it all, so here goes:
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >DanM wrote: <much snippage> > 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. Disagree. I would not forbide a mentally competent woman, who knows that being pregnant will most likely kill her, from continuing the pregnancy (although I would strongly advise against *becoming* pregnant in such a situation), but to say that a woman whose pregnancy will probably kill her *must* continue it is contributing to the murder of a realized, as opposed to potential, human life. By such 'pushing and shoving' rights, one would be justified in dropping certain persons in power into a combat zone since they have been, and are, and will be, responsible for multiple civilian deaths of men, women, and children, as well as some unborn. One could presume that the conflict might cease with the loss of such persons; of course, one would likely be wrong - in several senses. > 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... Once again, one could argue that anyone who starts a war and causes any "collateral damage" is a cold-blooded killer - most of those civilians have no choice about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. > 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. Unless it's the woman whose pregnancy is life-threatening to her? Life is not Black and White. To choose among the Grey options is our lot. In Ideal DebbiWorld (TM), there would be no unwanted pregnancies, no war, no terrorism, no murder, no rape, etc. etc.. Last time I checked, DebbiWorld does not exist, at least in this brane. I am not unaware of the merits of your stance, but I also see the inconsistancies in it. My own brand of pragmatic idealism sucks, but less than BlackandWhite absolutism. IMO, of course. > >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... "If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a 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... Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable than another. [Note that I have already made clear that indeed I do judge such things; medical triage is one of the ugliest situations imaginable -- and I must point out that collectively 'we' have decided that a huge number of already-born children suffering from malaria, AIDS, and plain old diarrhea are less valuable than augmenting various breasts, penises and butts, or reducing other tummies. It's at least as obscene, and in my book more so (because they're already full humans), as aborting a fetus because it's the 'wrong' gender (but until medicine is able to correct certain fatal/high-morbidity genetic defects, I am not opposed to selecting gender in the case of serious sex-linked disease; however pre-conception or blastocyst selection is far preferable to post-implantation abortion). But rather than banning them, I'd just slap an enormous tax on luxury cosmetic procedures, proceeds to go to the above causes, with massive financial penalties on doctors who try to circumvent the defined parameters.] > > 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. Just going to point out that Africans *didn't* count as full human (3/5s of a person, I believe was specified, in the matter of population, although of course they did not get 3/5s of a vote in elections) to certain framers of the Constitution [#], and women didn't get equal rights under our law until the twentieth century. I actually believe that it *is* possible for abortion to become necessary only in case of the mother's life (and various SF writers would propose that artificial wombs, or transference of a desired fetus to a surrogate, would remove even that) or fatal/severe fetal defect (frex anencephaly). [Rape could be removed as cause if the victim was treated pre-implantation, but this implies a woman able to gain access to medical care/pharmaceuticals within a short time.] # An example of the ugly but necessary compromise required to make things work, if forming a United States of America was to be; of course, the payment due for that was our Civil War and its aftermath, down to this very day. > 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. No; frex a pro-choicer might support legislation protecting the unborn from exposure to teratogens, or even mandatory confinement for the duration of a drug-addict's pregnancy, with removal of the infant to state guardianship unless the woman successfully completed treatment for her addiction. > 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. I don't know any OBs who'd agree with that last, although I'll assume that there are some. Euthanasia is not the same as assisted suicide (recall the requirements of Oregon's law posted here previously) of a competent adult, and is much murkier ethically; I don't know any medical folk who'd want to go the euthanasia route except in the most extreme circumstances (uhm, someone trapped inextricably in a burning structure, and you have a gun? <shudder>). > > > 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 Which still doesn't answer the question. <non-reading of further posts warning! Possible self-smackage in advance> Debbi Somewhere In The Vicinity Of 500 Posts To Go Maru __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
