> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:08 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex > Importance: High > > And are there any acceptable exceptions? Like danger to the mother's > health? For the doctor *is* bound to consider his patient's well-being > first, and the unborn baby hasn't hired the doctor... > > Also, once, if, the abortion rates go down, who does what to ensure that > the unwanted born babies are nurtured properly?
Well, the unwanted ones could be humanely killed after 10 days, like the ASPCA does. Now, I know that's a sarcastic...but the sarcasm wasn't really aimed at you. The purpose of it is to illustrate how different fundamental assumptions result in different reasonable statements. Reason allows us to develop theorems from axioms. It can also show inconsistencies between different axioms. But, we cannot distinguish between self-consistent axiom sets by logic alone. One needs an outside reference. So, I don't think it is helpful to make arguments based on one's own axiom set and then expect them to sound "reasonable" to someone who holds a different axiom set. What we can do is look at the consequences of various definitions. I'll give an off the wall example. If one defines humans as the literate animal, and that one must be literate to be human, than it is not murder to kill anyone who cannot read and write....for whatever reason. I'd bet dollars to donuts that no one on this list believes this, but I hope it illustrates the idea. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
