> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > >DanM wrote:
> > <much snippage> <<ditto!>> > > > ...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....but to > >say that a woman whose > > pregnancy will probably kill her *must* continue > > 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. Hmm, I was probably overreacting re: the recent South Dakota law, which does not except it (if what I've read is correct). > 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. <grin> And I was refusing to have my pro-choice stance deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens etc.) > > 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. Perhaps not. My attempt was to point out the inconsistancies in being anti-abortion yet shrugging off civilian deaths in war as unavoidable collateral damage. (Probably a bit snippy having recently heard that Iraqi civilian casualties are ~ 100/*day* now.) > > Once again, one could argue that anyone who starts > > a war and causes any "collateral damage" is a > > cold-blooded killer... > 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? But we didn't *start* that war - Hussein invaded Kuwait. (OK, we were partly responsible for SH being in power at that time; if you take that position, then I'd concede that the US bears some blame.) Finishing a war is one thing; starting quite another. > > > 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. I understand your position better. WRT a woman with poor mental health raising a child, and that child being neglected/abused: what do you think of the _Freakonomics_ position that crime is down since RvW b/c those aborted didn't enter a life of crime? (I think it's an interesting observation, but unproven.) > > "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. Nor, under law, is aborting a 15-week fetus. BTW, Alberto, interesting take; Charles Dart would approve. > > Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable > >than another. > > No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that > 500. ? Sorry, missing that? Please clarify. > > > 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... > > > > Just going to point out that Africans *didn't* > >count as full human....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. Agreed; again, it was probably required in order for the USA to exist, but the butcher's bill is still not paid off. <grimace> > > 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? ? If you mean free to abort, yes; your axioms are quite clear. .....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? I don't know any who would equate abortion with euthanasia of drug-addicted babies. And actually, I don't know any OBs who have as hard a stance as you; since I trained at a state charity hospital, the outcome for the vast majority of 'crack-babies' was state wardship - their mortality rate was fairly high from what I was told (although I have no figures to substantiate that). Pregnancy *prevention* was quite high on their (the OB-GYNs) priority list. Debbi When You're Up To Your Ass In Alligators... Maru :P __________________________________________________ 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
