Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!think!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!melissa From: melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: 2-year-olds vs fetuses-survival Message-ID: <1241@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 16:27:50 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1241 Posted: Wed Oct 8 16:27:50 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 05:06:50 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: melissa@trillian.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre) Organization: MIT Project Athena Lines: 93 In article <1234@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >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? Yes. That was (partly) my point in rejecting viability as the criterion. >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. A valid point genetically, but my point was that the genetic gamble one way or another is mine to make. >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). Absolutely. The opinion of the father does not count. (Warning: extremely flammable statement ahead:) If a man wants to pass on his genes and expects that a woman wouldn't want to because they are defective, he should make a legally binding contract with her beforehand on the matter. I consider that a man gives up ANY claim to his sperm (and products thereby) when he *gives* them to the woman in copulation. Just as he gives up legal claim to a piece of jewelry if he gives it to her for her birthday. Any other claims should be established in standard legal ways, primarily by written contract. I personally would have to be paid a hell of a lot of money to sign over my right to abort an unhealthy fetus. > >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. I would certainly grant him that right, but he already has it. Men tend to do the ultimate choosing in terms of who he *gives* his sperm to. It's pretty hard to force it out of him! >>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? How on earth is existing (in the fetus) genetic damage preventable? It's already happened! Not for its own good usually. If the child is so flawed that I would consider aborting it to be for its own good, it must be in such bad shape that I have all sorts of other interests (like medical costs) which would lead me to abort it anyway. >>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). Why is that worse? (I don't expect you to defend negative eugenics, but you did just claim negative is [if anything] better than positive.) >I have tried not to flame (though I confess I was so inclined). Thank you. The net needs more rational people like yourself. >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? That's exactly why it's a dirty word. That doesn't mean it should be, however. Love can be a dirty word if used by a rapist to describe his (twisted) emotions towards his victim, but that doesn't mean that the word doesn't have a legitimate use. >Gary Samuelson -- Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu)