> > Good morning all> >
> > There are some elements in this discussion (argument) that bother me.
> Enough
> > not to lob a stick of gelignite this time, but to run it past a wiser
> heads
> > than mine: yours.
> >
> > There seems to be an assumption creeping in that everything we ever
> wanted
> > to know about unborn babies, about their bodies and minds, is there
> for all
> > to see, and then make a judgement on. In the real, imperfect world I
> live
> > in, doctors are punters in suits, and what they tell us are opinions,
> not
> > facts, and the opinions are based on /influenced by what they know,
> their
> > biases, their assumptions, and whether they suffer a hangover or were
> held
> > up in a bad traffic jam on the way to work that morning.
> >
> > There also seems to be an assumption that pregnant ladies, confronted
> with
> > the facts in a reasonable and rational manner - the way people on the
> list
> > like to portray themselves - will then come to a rational decision,
> based on
> > facts, pros and cons. This does not take into account that hormonal
> balances
> > in the host person have ensured that physically and emotionally the
> most
> > important thing to the mother to be is to procreate and save the
> species
> > from extinction. This means that no rational decision is possible as
> > emotional reality is dominant.
> >
> > Also I can see no way that a woman will accept that the being in her
> womb is
> > anything less than a human being, no matter how imperfect a one.
> >
> >thank you for being tolerant and patient with me, rgds John
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Judy Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 1999 4:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: What does the Let's-Silence--Singer camp want?
> >
> >
> > > > Judy --
> > > >
> > > > I think if you _really_ would like to hear about these things, you
> > > would
> > > > make the request in a less insulting manner.
> > >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > I admit to tetchiness, but I really want to know. Let s/he who never
> > > ever distorts "truth" cast the first stone. You're being sooooo
> > > un-postmodern - of course I have no idea what the people who were at
> > > Princeton *really* intended - who's got the time? - but it provoked
> some
> > > interesting debate - and so here we are -
> > >
> > > > First, I keep hearing about Singer changing his views, but I
> haven't
> > > > actually seen any references. Do you have one? (I'm not denying
> that
> > > they
> > > > exist, I just see more chat about it than citation.)
> > >
> > > New York Times interview recently.
> > >
> > > > Do you really agree with them that there is no significant
> > > > difference between abortion and infanticide?
> > >
> > > I can see a brilliant career for you push-polling for the
> Republicans
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > What kind of question is that? And which part of me are you asking?
> > >
> > > The rationalist in me agrees with Singer that where self-awareness
> in
> > > time is not present - a human infant is not higher than a chimp or a
> > > flatfish.
> > >
> > > The anthropologist says, yes, but the way we view infants is deeply
> > > imbedded in our systems of meaning making and to act purely on
> reason
> > > alone is to destroy intricate fabric of society
> > >
> > > The agnostic says, maybe everyone really is here for a spiritual
> > > purpose - the sanctity of life argument.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you asked, because now I've thought for a moment, I would
> opt
> > > for what in Jewish Law is known as the "Fence around the Law"
> argument:
> > > To separate the sacred from the profane, borderline cases must be
> > > treated as though they were sacred, even though we know they are
> not.
> > > Because otherwise being human, we will become confused and gradually
> > > encroach on the sacred (or Good). Thus, even though as a matter of
> > > reason, an anencephalic baby (is there such a thing) is not really
> "a
> > > person", we must still act in law as if it were. Because otherwise
> we'll
> > > soon be throwing away other babies. Hey, I think I've heard this
> > > argument before! But now I've finally got it in terms that I
> understand.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, a parent must still retain the right to choose,
> and
> > > even to choose wrong sometimes.
> > >
> > > So that's what I really think, or a tiny chunk of it.
> > >
> > > Judy Singer
> > >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|