Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site enmasse.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!enmasse!mike
From: mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: Vet kills his baby.
Message-ID: <353@enmasse.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 20:19:37 EST
Article-I.D.: enmasse.353
Posted: Tue Feb 19 20:19:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 21:41:38 EST
References: <319@cadre.ARPA> <361@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: Enmasse Computer Corp., Acton, Mass.
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.religion:5679 net.politics:7700 net.legal:1423

> 
> Personally, I feel that this is a good illustration of the benefit of
> using a parental declaration (or a default period after birth) as the legal
> fiction for the onset of humanity.  The purpose of this idea is to provide a
> flexible legal rationale for abortion and dealing with deformed newborns.
> A rejected newborn would be available for adoption, and if not adopted,
> humanely destroyed.  Much as adoption at the ASPCA works.

SAY WHAT??? If the child is deformed and is going to live painfuly or die
soon then "destroying" (mercy killing) him is one thing but to suggest
that a healthy child (not fetus, abortion arguments to net.abortion or
better yet /dev/null) should be killed if they arent adopted within a set
time frame (2 weeks -> 17 years and 364 days) is SICK.  If you are only
suggesting this (adoption or else ...) for deformed infants, where do you
draw the line?
					Mike Schloss