Max Sawicky wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Max asked a highly loaded question:
>
> I wasn't thinking of eugenics (or disabilities) at
> all. I simply
> acted on the mischievous urge to ask why a
> condemnation of someone who discounted the value
> of a life of less than 30 days duration did not
> extend to an identical view towards a life with
> an age of, say, minus 45 seconds. In this
> context, perhaps not the one at the center of
> your post, whether the baby is this baby or
> *this* baby, as Rob says, seems irrelevant,
> especially to the baby or whatever else we
> choose to call 'it'.
Max,
Nat Hentoff has written about this question in his book, Speaking Freely in a chapter called "Euphemisms." I have only recently read it but his comments need to be considered. Hentoff's position against abortion is for the reason that there is no difference between the birth and womb even though in Roe v Wade the court made the distinction that a baby's constitutional right starts at birth.
It is too long a passage or I would type it all out. It is well worth a read.
Marta Russell