Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gatech.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!gatech!owens From: owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Alternatives, Other Places, Other Times Message-ID: <6091@gatech.UUCP> Date: Sat, 14-Apr-84 09:24:39 EST Article-I.D.: gatech.6091 Posted: Sat Apr 14 09:24:39 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Apr-84 08:43:10 EST References: <800@psuvm.UUCP> Organization: Georgia Tech School of ICS, Atlanta Lines: 66 ********start of quote********* >From Science 84, May 1984, "Infanticide", pages 26-31: "But human infanticide is too widespread historically and geographically to be explained away just as a pathology or the peculiarity of some aberrant culture. ...In fact there is good evidence for infanticide in 100 hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies ..." "In 18th-century Europe, so many children were killed when their parents rolled over them in bed - ostensibly by accident - that an Austrian decree of 1784 forbade parents to take their children under 5 to bed with them. ...In France in 1833 more than 160,000 babies were given to foundling hospitals, where most of them died in infancy." "Often babies are killed because they put too great a strain on a family's limited resources. ...Australian Aborigines, for example, sometimes kill babies born during droughts, while some South American Indian mothers kill their ill-timed newborns because they take milk away from their older babies who are still nursing. A number of cultures kill the second-born of twins." "The !Kung bushmen of the Kalihari Desert in Africa practice infanticide as a way of spacing births." "The British found female infanticide rampant in India in the late 18th century." "In the 17th and 18th centuries, death rates in colonial America for girls aged one to nine were sometimes more than twice those for boys, and similar patterns are seen in 18th century Europe." This is growing longer than I had intended so I won't quote from the part of the article that discusses the similarly widespread practice of infanticide among animals. But please consider: if a practice is so widespread among so many forms of life which either were created by God or evloved over many millions of years, is it not possible that this practice might answer some real need? ********************************** Some further conclusions that can be concluded (:-) The majority of societies in history believed in a god. Ergo, that fulfilled a need, so we should too. The majority of societies in history neither had representative government nor a bill of rights. Ditto. The majority of societies in history were run by kings. Ergo, we'd better get one too. The majority of societies in history never had the pill. Ergo, we'd better do without it too. End of silly conclusions. A few points. Infanticide apparently is sexist, but it won't be righted by allowing the institutionalized killing of both sexes impartially. Secondly, The above looks like a call to join the bandwagon, without asking if this particular bandwagon is the right or proper one to join, and whether it is going where we want to go. Thirdly, if a God is assumed, as well as the fact that some of His creations are capable of evil (like us), then don't laugh at the idea of a middle-person going bad (like the devil). Fourthly, if evolution is assumed, then we are either mastered by it or masters of it, so take your pick. However, I won't be surprised if, after taking our cues of how to behave from the lower animals, we eventually become like them. (no insult intended. that's just life. we become what we behold.) No thanks, I'll pass, Gerald Owens Owens@gatech