Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: 2-year-olds vs fetuses-survival Message-ID: <1234@bunker.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 17:11:33 EDT Article-I.D.: bunker.1234 Posted: Tue Oct 7 17:11:33 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:56:23 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 78 In article <1233@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> melissa@trillian.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre) writes: >In article <648@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes: >>... you can tell a fetus from a child if you take it away from >>its mother, give it to someone who will love it and wants to care for >>it, and see whether it lives or dies. >>M. B. Brilliant Marty >I have to disagree with this test. Medical science is getting closer >and closer to the point that they can keep the fetus alive from >conception out of a womb (or transplanted to another womb). >I happen to be a (female) positive eugenicist. That means I care about >what genes I allow to continue in the race. If a mental retard >raped me and made me pregnant, I would want that fetus killed regardless >of what miracles of medicine could save them because I don't want >to be biologically responsible for allowing genes that I consider >harmful to mankind to be perpetuated. I don't think you are really disagreeing with Marty's definition of child vs. fetus; you're just saying that it doesn't matter if it's a child or a fetus. You want the fetus killed because it's (possibly) defective. Whether it could live if removed doesn't seem relevant, according to your view. Suppose that the fetus were removed and transplanted to another woman who did want it, or hooked it up to a life support system. Would you still claim a right to have it killed? And you ignore the possibility that the child of someone mentally retarded may be quite "normal." "Normal" parents occassionally have "retarded" children -- it seems like you haven't even considered the possibility that "retarded" parents might have "normal" children. To get to a more likely scenario, if you and your genetically superior man happen to conceive a less-than-perfect fetus, are you going to claim the right to have it killed? Does the opinion of the father-to-be count? (Apparently not, judging from the statement below). >Eugenics is a very dirty word nowadays, and I expect to get flamed >severely. But I firmly believe that I have a right to want >to choose the father of my children by genetic criteria. You certainly have the right to want to choose the father of your children by any criteria you find appropriate -- if you grant the man the right to want to choose the mother of his children by any criteria he finds appropriate. >No man has >the right to force me to bear his child if I believe his genetic >contribution will damage either the child in particular or my >future genetic lineage. Right, you're going to kill the fetus for its own good. To avoid what you perceive as 'genetic damage' (which is not by any means a foregone conclusion, nor utterly preventable), you demand the right to kill it -- how much more "damaging" can you get? >For those inclined to flame, realize the difference between "positive" >and "negative" eugenics. Negative eugenicists want to sterilize >others carrying "bad" genes. Positive eugenicists are interested only >in trying to increase the frequency of 'good' genes (by their own >definition) through voluntary measures involving the bearers of those >good genes. I don't see a practical difference -- if anything, what you call positive eugenics is worse. You don't want to sterilize the carriers of bad genes, you want to kill them (only if they are your offspring, of course). I have tried not to flame (though I confess I was so inclined). Why do you suppose 'eugenics' is considered a dirty word? Might it be because it reminds people of (how shall I put it -- mustn't use that other dirty word) previous attempts to 'purify' the race? Gary Samuelson