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
Subject: Re: Vet kills his baby(The discussion has kinda strayed)
Message-ID: <8279@watarts.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 12:44:18 EST
Article-I.D.: watarts.8279
Posted: Mon Feb 25 12:44:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 05:37:58 EST
References: <319@cadre.ARPA> <361@cybvax0.UUCP> <344@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <373@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 55

> 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."  <SPLAT>
> > 
> > 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.

  Do you mean to tell me that pro-lifers aren't putting the money up
for these newborns? Do some research on it and see before you make such
a statement. And I don't like being called someone who doesn't put up
a contribution to society! I may not make as significant contribution,
when compared with other people, but at least someone is being helped.
PLEASE DO NOT MAKE BLANKET STATEMENTS ABOUT ALL PRO-LIFERS.  

> 
> This proposal would encourage good birth control, because the alternatives
> would be abhorrent to many.

I happen to agree with you there(see not all pro-lifers are anti-birth control).
> 
> 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.

There is a danger in assuming that parenting is a lot harder than it was
before. In fact, what has really changed is the attitude of parents.
It used to be that parents treated children as unhuman; that was a 
widespread norm up until after WW1. Today, parents are realizing that there
are countless things to watch out for in parenting, which come from the
massive amount of research being done on developmental psychology.
That doesn't mean that parenting has become harder; it only means that in
our society, parenting is considered an obligation.
  The final comment on this point could be the understanding of
the conditions in which parenting took place before. We have it so easy
in our society; we are so affluent that we can afford to both work and
be parents, whether taking the mother or father role. We have the money,
it's just that it is easier to spend it on luxuries rather than on kids,
whether taking care of them in a home or in institutions.

Sincerely yours,

                     DAVE BROWN

================================================================================

			WHO SAID HISTORY IS IRRELEVANT?

================================================================================