----------------------------------------
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:15:29 -0400
> Subject: Re: [MD] Morality, Abortion and the MoQ
>
>> Ham wrote
>> Human values are not served by bringing infants into the
>> world with life-threatening physical deformities, severe
>> brain damage, blindness, and degenerative diseases.
>
> [MP]:
>> MP: Yikes. I personally know a few people that would
>> viscerally take serious offense to that statement, Ham.
Dan
I remember there was a fellow named Fred who posted here for a brief time quite
a number of years ago. He wrote a letter to Robert Pirsig and shared the
response with us all. It was a joy to read and gladdened my heart.
Fred was born with a severe birth deformity but after exchanging emails with
him both on list and off list I found that it didn't matter. In fact I wouldn't
have even known he had a deformity if he hadn't informed us (and if I hadn't
seen him on tv back before the day I got rid of it). Fred was a comic. You
might have called him a stand-up comic but he was in a chair.
I count my exchanges with Fred as some of the most enlightening and fruitful
ones I have ever had, here or anywhere. So I think I agree with Michael. I am
one of those people who take serious offense to nonsense like Ham's spouting
here.
>Ham:
> No doubt that's true. Every cognizant individual wants to live out his
> life, regardless of the circumstances. It's the survival instinct of
> nature's biology. However, we are talking here about the mother's control
> over the fate of a pre-cognitive human organism. Does she want to bring a
> child into the world knowing that it may suffer a fate worse than death -- a
> torturous life of extreme physical or mental incapacity with little or no
> hope of survival, much less a normal human existence?
Dan:
Of course not. That's only a question a man who has placed himself at the
pinnacle of evolution could ask.
>Ham:
> Put yourself in that mother's predicament, Michael, and tell me if you would
> willingly submit your child to such a life if you could prevent it? How
> would you justify choosing to sustain that life? Because it is your "moral
> obligation" as a mother? Because it's 'The Will of God"? Because you
> believe Life is so sacred that there is no such anomaly as an ill-begotten
> creature?
Dan:
Our medical advances are a wonder to behold. However, the screening processes
are far from infallible. According to your logic, Ham, when a baby like Fred is
born, we should immediately end it's "ill-begotten" life. History is full of
"ill-begotten creatures" who have added an immense value to our world. Don't
you know that?
I have to say, you're a cold man, Mr. Priday.
>Ham:
> I surmise that you are a rational, compassionate person. Your considered
> response may reveal more about your values than either of us was aware of.
Dan:
Good advice, Ham. Why don't you take it yourself? Turn that grand philosphical
spotlight on your own warped veiws and see what turns up. It might be that you
have far less value to offer than many of the "ill-begotten creatures" that you
assail so freely.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_032009
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
