arndt@lymph.DEC (02/24/85)
Mike has made the strongest case I have seen lately for the pro-life position as to where the lowering of the standard of human life will take us. Of course Mike, or those who come after him - after it is legal to kill a non-adoped baby, "humanely" certainly, would never move another step to defining certain races or groups as worthy of serious consideration for "humane" treatment, right?? Of course not!! Such a thing could never happen. We all know that there is no 'final solution' to the problem of 'not good enough' or 'not quite' humans. Why that's the old camel's nose under the tent argument! Ha Ha Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/25/85)
In article <699@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > Of course Mike, or those who come after him - after it is legal to kill a > non-adoped baby, "humanely" certainly, would never move another step to > defining certain races or groups as worthy of serious consideration for > "humane" treatment, right?? Of course not!! Such a thing could never happen. > We all know that there is no 'final solution' to the problem of 'not good > enough' or 'not quite' humans. Ken is not the first to accuse me of Naziism (there's been one other by mail. He's much more polite, though just as wrong.) Ken's argument is just as large a non-sequiteur as someone saying the bible endorses Naziism, because at points God commands the killing of other tribes. There is an illogical jump that is plausible, but still incorrect. It is impossible to keep people from discriminating. I personally am opposed to racial and ethnic discrimination. However, it does happen, even recently in the US, as in the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Yes, radical changes in what we legally define as human are to be feared by all. That's one reason why the Nazis were so loathed. My proposal for humanity by declaration prior to or shortly after birth is a tiny change, that merely codifies what is essentially already practiced. There already are a fair number of legal ways to destroy defective newborns by withholding treatment. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (02/26/85)
Mr. Arndt takes issue with Mr. Huybensz' comments on Infanticide. Infanticide has been practiced by many cultures. Our culture is not one of these. Just as we see infanticide as immoral, so too would other cultures see our permitting "excess" infants to live be immoral. Does that make it "right" to kill unwanted new-borns? No. "Right" and "wrong" are defined by the culture in which one is embedded. In our culture, infanticide is defined as "wrong." The planet has a finite carrying capacity. Some method must be found for insuring that we do not exceed this capacity. Infanticide is, to me, an unpalatable approach. Would Mr. Arndt care to propose another approach? (Preferably one demonstrated to work and more acceptable than the [proven] method of infanticide. Celibacy has been proven to NOT work.)
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (03/01/85)
> > Mr. Arndt takes issue with Mr. Huybensz' comments on Infanticide. Infanticide > has been practiced by many cultures. Our culture is not one of these. Just as > we see infanticide as immoral, so too would other cultures see our permitting > "excess" infants to live be immoral. > > Does that make it "right" to kill unwanted new-borns? No. "Right" and "wrong" > are defined by the culture in which one is embedded. In our culture, > infanticide is defined as "wrong." > I agree. Societal rules don't just come out of thin air. For instance, infanticide is sometimes practiced in societies that have to control their populations to prevent starvation (e.g. tribal societies living in the desert). These societies are doing the right thing (in their eyes) when they kill infants in order to prevent starvation in the whole tribe. I doubt that they see infanticide as a good thing. They would probably see infanticide in the U.S. as a terrible thing because we have so much food. Cultural relativism is the belief that people develop their cultural rules to fit their own circumstances. It does not follow from a belief in cultural relativism that one can yank a rule out of one culture and insert it in another without creating lots of problems. > The planet has a finite carrying capacity. Some method must be found for > insuring that we do not exceed this capacity. Infanticide is, to me, an > unpalatable approach. Would Mr. Arndt care to propose another approach? > (Preferably one demonstrated to work and more acceptable than the [proven] > method of infanticide. Celibacy has been proven to NOT work.) I don't think there can be one method. Each society will have to do something that fits its cultural beliefs. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak