From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:32:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.174921.21018@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
><1992Jul30.191305.21907@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>>> Many of the pro-life people also oppose euthanasia
>>> and the use of anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 
>
><lefty-300792174350@lefty.apple.com> (Lefty) writes:
>> In what possible sense can opposition to the use of anencephalic infants as
>> organ donors be construed as being "pro-life"?
>
>In a political context concerning the meaning of "life" and its
>worthiness of protection, this is a good question and ought to
>be debated.  Many recent crises of medical ethics ( Nancy Cruzan,
>Dr. Kevorkian, etc.) are bringing the issue to a head, and some
>political decisions must be made soon.  The courts have been
>floating too long without democratic guidance.
>
>However, in the particular case you describe...
>
>> Several months ago, there was a fairly well publicized case in which the
>> parents of an anencephalic baby desperately wanted their child's organs to
>> be available for transplant.  My recollection is that they were opposed by
>> a "pro-life" group, and the case was taken to court.  The parents wishes
>> were disallowed, as I recall, after the court ruled against them.
>
>> Their baby died; it would have under any circumstances.  Quite likely
>> several other children who could have benefitted from the organs, had they
>> been transplanted, died as well.  In what sense is this a "pro-life"
>> stance?
>
>This is "pro-life" in the sense that it is "pro-rule-of-law".  There
>is no question that the anencephalic baby met the state criterion
>for being a living person.  The legal question then was "Shall the
>court grant permission to individuals to take the life of a living
>person to benefit others?"  The only possible ruling was negative.
>Courts must concern themselves with the precedent they set as
>well as the immediate case before them.  Such precedent would
>render impotent the laws which protect all persons.  When those
>laws are nullified, then the legal protection of our lives that
>we all enjoy is jeopardized.  

It is pro-life because we are protecting an innocent life from being
snuffed out for someone else's benefit. 

And the laws that were nullified that protect the lives of everyone,
was when the human fetus, a person in the law, was declared a
non-person. 

If abortion hadn't been legalized, there wouldn't be any way for
anyone to begin chopping away at the right of innocent human beings,
to live. We thought that anti-life effort had died with Jim Crow, but
noOOOoo, pro-choice groups had to take up his cause, not knowing what
they were asking for. 

>If it is indeed a mistake to protect the lives of anencephalic
>babies when their organs might be better used by other babies,
>then the laws need to be changed to reflect that.  And we,
>as participants in the political process, need to have the courage
>to make these changes.  We can't sit back and trust and expect
>the judges to do it all for us.  

It has never been a mistake to protect any innocent human life even
when they could be killed and better used by someone else. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion