JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> So, then why on earth would someone carry a baby to term and then
> kill it if they did not want ANY baby at all? The reason one would want to
> kill
> an infant after it was born would most likely be because they did not like
> the *particular* baby they got.
>
> Actually in human history the three main reasons are (a) the baby is a girla
> and not a boy; (b) the mother is unmarried and would be disgraced, or (c)
> there isn't enough food for another mouth.
I think that you omitted one - (a) the baby had a "defect."
> With pre screening widely available, abortion has
> become a search and destroy mission to get rid of the disabled fetus. So
> even
> though Singer does not state this explicitly, he is developing the ethical
> grounds to extend this practice from abortion to birthed babies.
>
> I guess you've gone to other other extreme, since the lines can't be nicely
> drawn, abortion must be immoral. Of course this has certain consequences for
> women's liberation.
Well the question really is what life is "human" and the conclusion is drawn from that. It is not necessarily a "moral" decision.
The issue becomes tough. Somehow it was easier to go along with the abortion rights thinking until the pro choice forces started pushing it beyond the womb. I think it was NARAL who supported the killing of a disabled infant called Baby Jane Doe. The baby needed a shunt in order to live but the parents said no and the feminists jumped in with support for killing the infant, even though the baby under the constitution was a person and had the right of equal protection under our laws. They were going to let her starve to death. Is starvation painful? YOU bet it is.
Derek Humphrey thinks Roe v Wade is great. Roe v Wade has been used to extend the privacy right so that a surrogate can end the life of a husband, wife or children who are "incompetent" by withdrawing tubes and respirators. Now those of us on the inside know that a disabled life is devalued in our society, that "incompetent" is not objective and treatments are with held for many subjective reasons, based on the desires of others, not based on the wishes of the "incompetents." You see, I know that when Humphrey and Kevorkian speak of "death with dignity" they are talking about cutting us out of the herd.
I have always supported a womans right to choose, but that gets harder and harder to do, the deeper one explores what is really happening. It is in my own enlightened self interest to reject what can potentially kill me.
I am forwarding an article on what is happening with Singer at Princeton.
Marta Russell