> [Krimel] > I feel the need to bathe every time I agree with Ham on something, but fresh > from the shower I must say, no one is talking about infanticide here. Your > example of Fred is a classic case of seeing the issue from the Top Down. Dan: You make my point for me, Krim. We HAVE to see the issue from the top down unless we're somehow able to hop in a time machine and zoom forward. Who's to say a poor misbegotten creature like Christy Brown is going to grow up to be a wonderful poet, artist, and author? You? Ham? Why do you guys have the right? Give me a break.
[Krimel] To see the world from the Top down is to look at what is and ask what caused it to be and what are the odds of it happening. It doesn't make sense for example to ask if Stephen Hawking would be a better or worse physicist if he were not afflicted with a genetic disorder. He is who he is, through the chance events that formed him and his personal response to the facts of his life. What makes Hawking, Fred and Christy Brown stand out is that they are exceptions to a rule that many people who are so afflicted do not have the personal or social support systems to overcome such titanic forces stacked against them. When electing to bring a new life into the world I think most parent, given the free choice would prefer to confer upon their offspring every possible advantage and to remove from their path every possible obstacle. Who is to say? Not me, not Ham, not you but the parents who are going to assume the responsibility for the decision. We are giving parents and increasing number of choices in this regard and people will make some surprising decisions given those choices. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07040201.html Dan: I thought I qualified my statement in a clear way but I see now I did not. Personally, I am pro-choice. If prenatal screeening makes it clear that the fetus is severely deformed then I think the parents have a very personal and difficult decision to make. However, the potential you refer to so blithely is not so clear. In fact, no one can predict the future. I think we can agree on this much... [Krimel] As is so often the case I am not sure exactly what we are disagreeing about. We cannot predict the future but we can estimate probable outcomes and we can "influence" the probability of desirable outcomes by making certain choices. I am glad to hear we are in agreement on this. Dan: Even so, I am sure you'd agree not all mothers receive the best that prenatal care has to offer. [Krimel] And I think it is tragic. I also think that government policies the restrict poor women's choices to both prenatal care and access to abortion are morally reprehensible. Dan: But it's not nonsense to the Jains. I'm not saying I agree with that particular school of thought but neither do I feel I have the right to call it nonsense. [Krimel] Don't get me wrong I love the Jains. I think it is a nonsensical way to act but I applaud the diversity they represent and the strength of their beliefs. That doesn't restrict my right to think it's stupid. But perhaps this will clear it up: I think it would be a stupid way for me to live. Dan: Years ago it was quite common to steer those with birth deformities to institutions like the one where you observed. Today, not so. It's my understanding that today those in charge of such things prefer to mainstream kids who years ago would have been given no chance. Sounds to me like you're still back there observing. [Krimel] This is a really complex issue. Mainstreaming has helped many parents retain their children at home. It has also served to reduce the number of beds available for those who cannot be kept at home or who have no homes to be kept in. You are looking at successful cases as though they are the norm. It is as though the "possibility" of Fred, Christy and Stephen should determine the fate of every Billy, Suzie and Tommy whose afflictions are so severe or whose personalities are so weak as to make their dreams of the future nightmarish. Dan: Again, that is a personal choice the parents have to make. I am not advocating forcing parents to bear deformed children. But neither should we unilaterally declare what's best either. Each situation is different as evidenced by the 20% who elect not to terminate the pregnancy. [Krimel] We are in fundamental agreement that the decision should be in the hands of parents. But I will point out that a huge percentage of those 20% are driven by the religious conviction that it is not chance, but God who decides that they should rear children with birth defects. It is in effect, not making a distinction between God and chance. As Arlo has shown Platt is incapable of making this distinction. But I think the MoQ points beyond this. Dan: I tend to agree. Still, I think it's important to understand the value that people like Fred and Christy Brown and many others add the to world. Intellectually, it might have been better if they were never born. Luckily, we're not always guided by intellect, however. [Krimel] I do agree. I would not even say that intellectually anyone would be better if those individuals had not been born. Intellect is not our only guide. In fact I think our main guide is always our emotional commitment and that our intellect serves only to reinforce that commitment. It is easier for us to assimilate ideas into the conceptual frameworks that we are committed to than to change our frameworks to accommodate contrary ideas. I think it is that rigidity of thought that is Maya. 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/
