Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal Subject: Re: Vet kills his baby. Message-ID: <373@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 16:20:59 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.373 Posted: Fri Feb 22 16:20:59 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 02:24:19 EST References: <319@cadre.ARPA> <361@cybvax0.UUCP> <344@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 26 Xref: linus net.religion:5249 net.politics:7000 net.legal:1028 Summary: In article <344@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) writes: > > A rejected newborn would be available for adoption, and if not adopted, > > humanely destroyed. Much as adoption at the ASPCA works. > > Wonderful. "Sorry, kid. No requests came in this week." > > Do you seriously propose that because it works with dogs and > cats, we should try it with babies??? Only unwanted newborns. I don't see this as a problem, because it would force pro-lifers to put their money where their mouths are, rather than the other way around as they'd like it. This proposal would encourage good birth control, because the alternatives would be abhorrent to many. It would relieve parents of deformed newborns of the burden brought about by recent advances in medical science that they would have been spared in the past. Call this a thought experiment. I haven't yet seen any negative argument yet that isn't reflexive squeamishness like yours, though I imagine there might be some good reasons why this shouldn't be adopted. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh