Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!idis!cadre!sm
From: sm@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: Vet kills his baby.
Message-ID: <335@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 09:28:49 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.335
Posted: Fri Feb 22 09:28:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 07:32:11 EST
References: <319@cadre.ARPA> <361@cybvax0.UUCP> <353@enmasse.UUCP> <365@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 49
Xref: watmath net.religion:5727 net.politics:7791 net.legal:1447
Summary: 

In article <365@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>In article <353@enmasse.UUCP> mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes:
>> 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?
>
>It is not sick.  As any anthropologist could tell you, killing infants has
>not been an uncommon practice in a large number of societies.

Any anthropologist can probably also tell you than there are some cultures
where it is acceptable (even desirable), to eat the flesh of their opponents
who have fallen in battle or their dead heroes. Perhaps you could go one
step further and suggest that unwanted children be used for food ("Give so
that others may be served").

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

Don't confuse morality with custom (although "moral" comes from the French
"custom"). There are a lot of traditions practiced by ancient as well as
contemporary cultures which, while (possibly) practical, may not be "right".
One advantage to the sophistication of human communication is that human
behaviors are able to evolve at a MUCH greater rate than behaviors in other
animal species. Simply because another species or culture finds such behavior
acceptable, it does not become the right thing to do. (Or, perhaps, you might
also like to see us emulate certain insect species, where females destroy
the males after copulation. That would sure help the cause of population
control, decrease teen preganancy, and "fix" all sorts of social problems).

>I do not draw a line between deformed and normal newborns.  

You don't draw a line between humans and animals either.
>...      Proclamation of humanity by the parents or by
>adoption would confer all the rights that children normally enjoy today.
>-- 
>
>Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

In other words, the capacity to judge the humanity of any living creature
lies with those of us who have already been judged to be human (by virtue
of the fact that we survived). Or, we could pick one person; Idi Amin,
perhaps. He's obviously human since he's survived.

Sean McLinden