From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:54:31 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <Bxru3y.FG6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>Opinions are as good as the facts that back them up (simplpe Catholic
>logic). Let's check out your opinions...

[ Aborted child doesn't get to cure AIDs ]

>I see two key statements in there. The first is that the Smiths would have
>raised Baby Blue to be a good science student. The second is that the
>reason none of these things happen is because this singluar, specific baby
>was never born.
>
>If the Smiths are responsible for Baby's science achievements because of
>her environment, then by impliction it would *not* have to be the singular,
>specific baby in this example which the Smiths must raise to make all these
>achievements. You could take into account inborn tendencies towards
>science, but then this implies that these tendencies are genetic. Science
>has demonstrated that genetics play a relatively minor role in what someone
>may or may not achieve.

Science my ass.  You are telling me that if Shakespeare hadn't been born,
that social conditions prevailing at the time in Stratford-on-Avon would have
produced another one anyway?

>1) Given Matilda's charicter as a lower-class criminal and drug abuser,
>it is quite possible that Matilda has engaged in drug behavior that would
>severely damage her fetus in the womb. Once Chelsea is born, what is the
>likelihood that she will be brain damaged or a drug addict? This happens an
>awful lot, you know. Friends of mine were taking prescription medicine  
>*before they knew they were pregnant* and ended up causing irreparable
>damage to the developing brain, effectively destroying any chance the
>fetus had for a full, productive life. Aborting the fetus was merely
>finishing what the medicine had already done.

Well my wife and I smoked like chimneys and drank like fish and we still
managed to produce normally bright children.  Maybe one day they will cure
our lungs and livers for u, too.s.

>2) Given Matilda's charicter, it's likely that she would keep the baby
>(once born) to get an increase in welfare benefits. Your hypothesis
>states that Matilda causes misery for whoever she deals with. This would
>lead to the assumption that she would not be a nuturing mother for
>Chelsea. Therefore, it is also somewhat likely that even if born, the
>baby in this example will never accomplish what you state she will.

Likely schmikely.  The whole goddam point is it's _unlikely_.  You can't
have been reading closely.  

[kid that saves the world would never get adopted]
>LOTS OF CHILDREN WAITING TO BE ADOPTED ALREADY.

Very true.  Explain me again why we don't kill those?  I just want to
remember why some people value human life.

[...]

>Lost Boy


-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion