Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-cad.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!mjc
From: mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Vet kills his baby.
Message-ID: <304@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 23-Feb-85 19:29:54 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-c.304
Posted: Sat Feb 23 19:29:54 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 04:01:51 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.religion:5737 net.politics:7798 net.legal:1452

From: scott@gargoyle.UChicago ? (Scott Deerwester)
>> A rejected newborn would be available for adoption, and if not adopted,
>> humanely destroyed.  Much as adoption at the ASPCA works.
>
>Do you seriously propose that because it works with dogs and
>cats, we should try it with babies???

Are you willing to pay to keep each of them alive for the n months (say 3,
times how many kids???) and pay for all their expensive medical treatment?
That's what we (as taxpayers) are doing now.

While I would not have killed the kid (isn't speculation wonderful?) I would
have refused to take it.  If the doctor is so worried about it, let him pass
it along for adoption.  (This is very hypothetical for me -- I can't imagine
ever finding myself having a kid. (Flames on this point to net.abortion
only.).)

							-Dragon
-- 
UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg