> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:30 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex > > 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.
I didn't say that. Anti-abortion laws supported by the right to life movement usually have exceptions for pregnancies that put the mother's life at serious risk. I just allowed for the outside possibility that some minority of folks in the right to life movement might think of times when that's not appropriate. BTW, I was trying to lay out two positions: the pro-choice and the pro-life positions. My point was that folks tend to argue from their own axioms, ignoring the axioms of those they differ with. > 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. I'm not sure that pacifism is required to support the right to life. > 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. So, are you arguing that, for example, that the bombing that delayed Hussein getting the bomb until after Gulf War I is equivalent to cold blooded killing, even though it may have saved millions of lives? > > 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? In outlining the right to life movement's position, I did not equate health to life. Exceptions to anti-abortion laws for the mother's health means that any possible deterioration in the mother's health is grounds for abortion. It's basically abortion on demand...especially if, as it always is, mental health is included. All the woman would need to say is that thinking about carrying to term makes her depressed, and there is a valid DSM-IV diagnosis. Exceptions for the mother's life means that she has to have some significant risk of dying from pregnancy for the pregnancy to be terminated. > > "If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or > 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primates....yet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. > > Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable than > another. No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that 500. [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.] > > > > > 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. The Enlightenment did propose ideals that transcended practice for decades. Jefferson remarked on that once, saying "with slavery, we are riding a wolf...justice states that we must get off, prudence states we must stay on." I think he was aware of his own hypocrisy. > 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. But, she would be free to kill, right? > > 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. You don't know any pro-life OBs? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
