Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watarts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watarts!dbrown
From: dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Vet kills his baby.
Message-ID: <8273@watarts.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 15:12:19 EST
Article-I.D.: watarts.8273
Posted: Fri Feb 22 15:12:19 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 06:19:32 EST
References: <319@cadre.ARPA> <361@cybvax0.UUCP> <353@enmasse.UUCP> <365@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 49
Xref: watmath net.religion:5708 net.politics:7750

> It is not sick.  As any anthropologist could tell you, killing infants has
> not been an uncommon practice in a large number of societies.  Some American
> indian cultures were supposed to have exposed one of a pair of twins;
> one Indian caste (until recently) consisted only of men, always married out
> of caste, and destroyed female offspring; and exposure of unwanted children
> has been widespread in Europe (such as ancient Greece and Rome.)  In China
> today, there is widespread killing of female infants in the countryside
> (strong political disincentives for multiple child families and strong
> traditions for male heirs combine to produce this trend.)

Whoah, boy. Just because people do it doesn't make it right. 

> 
> In some cultures under some conditions, infanticide may be considered sick.
> In others, it may be viewed as normal, practical, pragmatic, and important.
 
See above.

> I do not draw a line between deformed and normal newborns.  If they are
> unwanted by anybody, then let them be destroyed after a reasonable period
> (say two weeks.)  This policy would not rule out orphanages run by religious

Hey, wait a minute here. Who said that a particular person has to want
somebody in order for that person to have a right to live?  With that type of
reasoning, why don't we just go out and shoot all the derelicts? 
Who wants them? They're no good to us anyways.

> groups (or perhaps adoptionages.)  Just as animal lovers who sponsor the
> ASPCA accept humane destruction of unwanted pets, we should accept humane
> destruction of unwanted newborns.  (However, I wouldn't go so far in my
> analogy as to say they should be sterilized upon adoption.  That thought
> is repulsive to me.)  Proclamation of humanity by the parents or by
> adoption would confer all the rights that children normally enjoy today.

So, if I read you correctly, you're saying that the real test of humanity
is the desire of someone, either a person or an organization to take care
of these people.  A problem:

		YOU ARE PUTTING AN ECONOMIC VALUE ON LIFE

If this is so, what indeed is the value of a life?
Is the only real value in life that which makes a person useful to society?
And, finally, is life worth retaining if it is economically unadvaisable?
I thought a life was precious, no matter how uneconomic was its contibution
to society. Or are we only worth the chemicals in our make-up?!?!!!

Sincerely yours,

			DAVE BROWN