<< Actually in human history the three main reasons [for infanticide] 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."
Probably common enough when it happens, but birth defects are rare. Also, some, particularly neurological ones like Down's don't show up till after it's too late for infanticide, and in peasant societies, physical defects might merge into (c), that is, the problem si not that the baby is crippled in some way per se, but that the family can't afford someone who will never be able to contribute. I'm just talking about people's motivations, you understand, not whether they are defensible.
>
> 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.
Yeah, but you need a moral premise like, "It's morally wrong to kill humans without good reason." Otherwise the fact that something is hujman is no more relevant than the fact that it's about 7 lbs or whatever.
>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.
The issue is intellectually tough in part because there's no nice place to draw lines.
> 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.
I don't know about the case and the facts you give aren't enough to allow drawing any conclusions. In any event, even if NARAL or some feminists supported infanticide in this case, it's just now true that infanticide is something that has a lot of support among organized or other feminism.
>They were going to let her starve to death. Is starvation painful?
YOU bet it is.
Sure. If we are going to have infanticide, we should drop the pretense that withdrawing support is morally better than giving an injection. As you remark, the injection is less cruel.
>Derek Humphrey thinks Roe v Wade is great.
So?
>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.
Uh, case cite? You are mistaken. The Supreme Court in fact rejected a constutional right to die that had been urged by the 9th Circuit. I'd support such a right myself.
>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 think you are mistaken. They don't want people to be condemned to agonizing and degrading deaths if the dying person doesn't want to live. If you had untreatable cancer and dying would be very painfyl and humilitaing, don't you think you should have the ability to choose a clean death with an injection?
>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 think that you are being paranoid if you think there is a move afoot to exterminate the "unfit." You also have to look at the wider implications. Criminalizing abortions won'ts top them of course, it will drive them underground to the hanger beigade as before. And it will reeduce women's freedom to control their lives and sexuality. That is why the rightw ing opposes abortion and wants it outlawed.
--jks