Hame, I think my reaction was initially mostly to "blindness" but thinking through each of the others I maintain my position in that regard. There are people who live/lived with these and lived quality lives.
The case of pain, in my mind is the only place where we can, externallly, objectively, be safe in saying the life live would have little value. But "no" value? And then why is "human values" somehow the determinant over "the child's values"? "Value" is subjective. And when we are speaking of the value of a life, only the person who's life it is has the moral ground to determine if their life is valueable anough to live. With respect to the value of the life to be lived, MoQ morally speaking what is the argument to support that it is what's more the mother's singular place to determine such value? Why not the father? Culture? Society? The simple fact that she bears the child does not, as I can work it out, lend the mother any moral standing to make this intellectual valuation in this regard any more than anyone else. Your argument placing such a valuation choice in the hands of the mother leaves open the question of why stop at birth?If the mother has this power, where is the argument using your logic against her killing such "valueless" lives after birth? How does the child's mere presence in the mother's womb give the mother power of life and death over that child for a nothing more than subjective intellectual criteria? If they are killable before birth because we somehow can predict they will bring no value to society, why let them live after birth? Are they not equally void of value potential after birth? Say two days old? How about a week? A month? Two? Twleve? Is there a magic line at birth? If so, what is it? Who draws it? How? Why isn't it somewhere afer birth? I don't see how you can state what you said without opening a moral chasm right into the moral void of pro-active eugenics. > > 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. > > 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? > > 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? > > 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. > > Thanks and regards, > Ham > MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
