From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Organization: Clark University
Date: 23 DEC 92 15:52:20 GMT

In a previous article, graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) wrote:

>Ah, but what about voluntary amputations.  Suppose I'm a productive
>member of society, and due to an unfortunate turn of events, I end up
>with a leg that no longer works, and in fact, produces a significant
>amount of chronic pain... so much so that I can no longer work, nor
>can I be the husband or father I once was.
> 
>In short, I can no longer earn a living, nor can I be as _responsible_
>as I once was.
> 
>So, I'm left with sucking blood from a welfare system (and perhaps
>Social Security), just to eat, BECAUSE I can find no surgeon that can
>see things AS I SEE THEM, and refuses to give me a stump that produces
>hopefully less pain, and will fit in an artificial leg, allowing me once 
>again, some semblance of "normalcy", and returns me to a _productive_ life.
> 
>Shouldn't this be a matter of my "choice", considering the alternative
>cost to the rest of society (at least those that give in to extortionists
>and pay taxes)?

You have as much right to choose amputation as a pregnant women does to choose 
abortion.  You do not have a right to force a physician to amputate your leg, 
just as a pregnant women cannot force an unwilling physician to perform an 
abortion on her.

>And what about any "pain" that I may feel afterward?  Is it not possible
>that many people that have abortions suffer some type of emotional
>"pain" later on?

It's possible.  It's true that many women suffer depression after child birth. 
Do you think we should we outlaw giving birth based on this?

>My point, which I hope is understandable, is this...
> 
>My understanding of this whole "choice" thing is that a women should have
>absolute rule over her own body (which by the way, I agree with).
> 
>So, why shouldn't I have the same absolute rule over mine?  

I think you should.  

>You really can't argue that in one case the person is causing themselves
>permanent and irrevocable disability.  That may also be true of the 
>women who chooses to abort, although it may be emotional rather than
>physical.
> 
>However, there are other "precedents" in our society that would make this
>an inequality.
> 
>Voluntary or "elective" amputation is a good example, I think.  What's more,
>one could argue about whether or not my leg that is amputated
>is a "human being".  It should be obvious to most, with NO twisting of
>terminology, that cutting off a leg is not the end of a human being
>(ie mine), but aborting a child in the womb simply IS.

Many people will disagree with you on this.  Fetuses are aborted, not 
children.  They may be human, but are they human beings?  There is a 
difference.

>There is no difference in terms of survivability between me, the amputee,
>or the mother, who had her child aborted.  We both are still alive.
> 
>My leg isn't, and the child isn't either.  But one at least had the
>_potential_ of a _thinking_, sentient human being, whether one chooses
>to call it a human being in or out of the womb.

Every egg and sperm cell has the potential to be a thinking, sentient human 
being.  Should we outlaw menstruation and masturbation?

>Jim Graham 

				.... Heather.