DanM wrote: > > Eh? But what happens to he right to life from the moment of conception > >then? Does that right end after birth? > > No, absolutely not. But, I've heard this argument many times with > respect to abortion and have not heard it once with respect to > infanticide. There is no pro-choice movement with respect to infants.
I'll point this out only once, but it is applicable to various parts of your post: You seem to be arguing this in the framework of the US abortion debate, and you seem to be expecting me to do the same. I am not sure why. I was asking questions I consider worth asking, to ascertain just what JDG thinks. But, or so I feel, you perceived these as the standard pro-choice arguments. I could be wrong but that seems to be the most valid reason for why I can't understand some parts of your answers. Now, moving on to the quoted text: Dan, just what *could* be a 'pro-choice movement for infants'? What is the choice here? To treat them well or not? > Let's assume, for arguments sake, that abortion and infanticide are > considered equally wrong....but that letting unwanted children live is > also wrong. Since fewer children would die if you gave the children a > chance to be born and selected, then that would be the lesser evil. > Right to life people would then have the challenge of finding people > ready to adopt within 10 days. That rule would at least give pro-life > people a chance to save their lives. You lost me somewhere there. I have no idea what your point is. Surely you are not advocating that a woman goes through an unwanted pregnancy to give birth to a child who might be killed 10 days later if the Right-to-Lifers don't deliver? I mean, why? So that the Right-to-lifers have the chance to do something worthwhile? Why does the society, or that mother or that child owe them so much? Try as I might, I can see *no* sense in that hypothesis. > Now, I admit, I am guessing that you don't make the same argument with > respect to the legality of infanticide. What? That they should be killed if the parents don't promise to take good care of them within 10 days of birth? Hell, no. Not when I come from a society and polity which has been fighting *against* female infanticide for decades. So not only is infanticide illegal, we no longer depend on the promises of the parents either. Currently, we are paying parents of girls a small lump sum at birth, monthly stipends for their daughters' food, two meals in school and a daily sum for attending school, and setting aside a fund for their marriage expenses. The taxpayers are paying for it, and willingly. For these are the biggest problems when it comes to assuring a decent life for the girl child: that the parents don't kill her because they worry about her dowry, that her parents feed her, and that they send her to school. > > Also, referencing the damage to women in back alley abortions as a > > counter to ending abortions, if the right of an unborn child was equal > > to the right of the woman who carried that child, then shouldn't > > protecting the child against getting killed be more important than > > ensuring that it is safe for the mother to kill her child? Well, I can see no way on ensuring that all pregnant women report their pregnancies, and their unwillingness to be pregnant, to someone who might stop them from the abortion attempts. So, as far as I can see, the choice is between losing one life or two. > > But wasn't the fundamental assumption here each individual's right to > > life? Even *before* they can take care of themselves? > > Absolutely. In a sense, I'm arguing that your statements tacitly assume > that there is a significant difference in the state before and after > birth. Umm, Dan, that is not an assumption, that is a fact. There *is* a difference between a zygote in a petri dish, and one implanted inside a uterus. A difference between a zygote and a 4 month foetus, a difference between the latter and a seven month foetus, one between the latter and a new born baby, another between the latter and a toddler....right until the difference between an old man and a dead man. > Again, I may be surprised by your views on the treatment of > children.... If this had been written by anyone else, I'd be wondering how sheltered a life they had led. But since I know what your wife does, I can only assume that you are not refering to my statement that kids can be, and are, horrifically abused, or abandoned, or killed, or hurt. So what are you refering to? > > How does that change > > just because the baby is out of the uterus? And babies can't take care > > of themselves - they still need nurturing, especially for the first > > couple of years. And in the absence of that nurturing, they can die. > > Or receive crippling physiological and/or psychological injuries. > > It doesn't. That's why it was a sarcastic statement....I don't really > mean it. But, if I had a choice between certain death and a chance at a > long full life ahead of me I'd take the latter. I assume most folks > would. Well, all emotionally healthy folks would in any case. What I find interesting here is the use of the term 'long full life'. What do you mean by that Dan? If I'm not mistaken, this notion ties in which the sentence of mine which started this entire conversation between us: 'Who is going to do what do ensure that the unwanted babies are nurtured properly?' > The fundamental axiom difference is this: the pro-life position holds > that fetuses are humans with human rights. The pro-choice position > holds that they are not. See the first paragraph of this mail. You are assuming my positions, simply because I am questioning JDG's position. Mind you, I'm not even sure that that holds true for all American pro-choicers either but that is not an area I know much about. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
