geb@cadre.UUCP (02/17/85)
References: Sender: Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh Keywords: Excepted from the NY Times, Feb 15: The murder trial of an Illinois veterinarian ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 10 to 2 in favor of conviction. The slaying occurred in the delivery room of the hospital, where the vet's wife had just given birth to a baby with cleft palate, webbed fingers, "dislocated" heart, and missing testicles. The autopsy report was not given in the article, but there was mention of the possibility of trisomy 13, a fatal defect. Doctors said the child would not have been expected to live more than three months. When the baby was born it was not breathing. The veterinarian noted the child's deformities, and asked the physicians not to use "heroic measures" to save the child. They explained that this was against hospital policy, and continued to resusitate the child, whereupon the vet seized the infant and smashed its head into the floor. His defense was temporary insanity. How would you have voted if you were on the jury? (OK, OK, I know this isn't enough information to decide, but let's do it in the hypothetical, so we can discuss the issues). I'll start by saying I would have voted to acquit. Any takers on this issue?
aar@homxa.UUCP (A.RAPPE) (02/18/85)
I don't know what i would vote because i don't have all the facts, but if the child was only going to live no more than three months then he had no right to kill the child. It must have been very traumatic for him and his wife but he has no right to judge who should live and who should die. I'm sure someone would have adopted the child if the parents didn't want to keep the child(only if the child lived long enough). If it came down to judging by looks, alot of babies would be smashed on the floor and then we would have a perfect society right? Tom
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/18/85)
In article <319@cadre.ARPA> geb@cadre.UUCP writes: > How would you have voted if you were on the jury? > (OK, OK, I know this isn't enough information to decide, > but let's do it in the hypothetical, so we can discuss the > issues). > > I'll start by saying I would have voted to acquit. Well, then it is apparent that you are voting on the basis of emotion rather than informed decision. I too feel the same way. However, it may be possible to construct a good argument for cause of temporary insanity if the vet indeed had a right to deny heroic efforts or even if he thought he had the right. Does anyone know what legal rights anyone has to deny heroic measures to offspring or oneself? Personally, I feel that this is a good illustration of the benefit of using a parental declaration (or a default period after birth) as the legal fiction for the onset of humanity. The purpose of this idea is to provide a flexible legal rationale for abortion and dealing with deformed newborns. A rejected newborn would be available for adoption, and if not adopted, humanely destroyed. Much as adoption at the ASPCA works. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
oft@hocsi.UUCP (o.a.faco) (02/19/85)
Reference: <319@cadre.ARPA> Would it be correct to make assumptions? If yes: I'm assuming that the vet's wife underwent tests to deduce the health of the fetus, and so on. If this is true, the doctor should have at least found that the child was having problems. At this point, I'm assuming the doctor told the patient that there were/weren't problems. If he didn't tell her, he's in some trouble. If he did tell her, did she tell her husband? If she did, then he murdered his child. If she didn't, she's just as guilty. Now, if the fetal tests were done during the whole pregnancy, would signs of the illness have shown themselves in time for an abortion or possibly some medical aid? If so, and the parents took no affirmative steps, then they both killed their child. My feelings would be to try to get the child's problems solved. Through medical research, as a 'guinea pig' (even though it sounds awful) if there was no chance otherwise. If no: I wouldn't know if I'd react in the following way. I would not have smashed the kid's head onto the floor. I would have tried to raise the kid for the three months, and if he lived longer than that, I would consider operations to correct as many of his problems as possible. These events could also be deemed an educational/experimental experience. Where new procedures could be tested, and so on. In either case, I would not have killed him. Olga Faco Fudd and Fuddett forever.
geb@cadre.UUCP (02/20/85)
In article <361@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >Does anyone >know what legal rights anyone has to deny heroic measures to offspring or >oneself? > One of the problems is that the law is very murky in this regard. Once a person enters a hospital, he probably gives up many of his rights in this regard. Many doctors are very loathe to allow even the most hopeless cases to die naturally, especially since 2 physicians in California were prosecuted for murder in such a case. In my view, there is a strong need for laws which permit a person to specify that no heroic measures be taken, and if he so does, protect doctors who let him die from prosecution. Similar measures should be taken for the parents of severely retarded or otherwise deformed infants who would die without extraordinary measures. The expense of maintaining both infants and elderly in intensive care and if the infant survives, in special environments is astronomically expensive. When the parent's resources are exhausted, the society bears the burden. Most people who haven't had such a child are unaware of the magnitude of the problem, since these children are sequestered in special institutions. Most of them never reach the IQ of a parakeet, and require constant nursing. They do feel pain, however, and it is clear that many, if not most of them are doomed to a life of suffering. Is it playing God to let them die? In my view, it is playing God to make them live, since they would die if nature was allowed to take its course. Unfortunately, the Reagan administration has taken the view that life must be preserved at all costs, and has tried to put notices of a toll free number in hospitals where disgruntled employees could make accusations against the hospitals and physicians who were thought to not be doing everything in the power of modern medicine to keep these fetuses alive. It is a sorry mess. I don't think the answer is to have the fathers smash the child into the floor, but I still understand his rage, and wouldn't have convicted him.
mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (02/20/85)
> > Personally, I feel that this is a good illustration of the benefit of > using a parental declaration (or a default period after birth) as the legal > fiction for the onset of humanity. The purpose of this idea is to provide a > flexible legal rationale for abortion and dealing with deformed newborns. > A rejected newborn would be available for adoption, and if not adopted, > humanely destroyed. Much as adoption at the ASPCA works. SAY WHAT??? If the child is deformed and is going to live painfuly or die soon then "destroying" (mercy killing) him is one thing but to suggest that a healthy child (not fetus, abortion arguments to net.abortion or better yet /dev/null) should be killed if they arent adopted within a set time frame (2 weeks -> 17 years and 364 days) is SICK. If you are only suggesting this (adoption or else ...) for deformed infants, where do you draw the line? Mike Schloss
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/20/85)
In article <353@enmasse.UUCP> mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes: > SAY WHAT??? If the child is deformed and is going to live painfuly or die > soon then "destroying" (mercy killing) him is one thing but to suggest > that a healthy child (not fetus, abortion arguments to net.abortion or > better yet /dev/null) should be killed if they arent adopted within a set > time frame (2 weeks -> 17 years and 364 days) is SICK. If you are only > suggesting this (adoption or else ...) for deformed infants, where do you > draw the line? It is not sick. As any anthropologist could tell you, killing infants has not been an uncommon practice in a large number of societies. Some American indian cultures were supposed to have exposed one of a pair of twins; one Indian caste (until recently) consisted only of men, always married out of caste, and destroyed female offspring; and exposure of unwanted children has been widespread in Europe (such as ancient Greece and Rome.) In China today, there is widespread killing of female infants in the countryside (strong political disincentives for multiple child families and strong traditions for male heirs combine to produce this trend.) In some cultures under some conditions, infanticide may be considered sick. In others, it may be viewed as normal, practical, pragmatic, and important. I do not draw a line between deformed and normal newborns. If they are unwanted by anybody, then let them be destroyed after a reasonable period (say two weeks.) This policy would not rule out orphanages run by religious groups (or perhaps adoptionages.) Just as animal lovers who sponsor the ASPCA accept humane destruction of unwanted pets, we should accept humane destruction of unwanted newborns. (However, I wouldn't go so far in my analogy as to say they should be sterilized upon adoption. That thought is repulsive to me.) Proclamation of humanity by the parents or by adoption would confer all the rights that children normally enjoy today. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) (02/21/85)
Mike Huybensz 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??? Scott Deerwester Graduate Library School University of Chicago
bullfrog@ihuxf.UUCP (k. gaskell) (02/22/85)
> not been an uncommon practice in a large number of societies. Some American > indian cultures were supposed to have exposed one of a pair of twins; > one Indian caste (until recently) consisted only of men, always married out > of caste, and destroyed female offspring; and exposure of unwanted children > has been widespread in Europe (such as ancient Greece and Rome.) In China > today, there is widespread killing of female infants in the countryside > (strong political disincentives for multiple child families and strong > traditions for male heirs combine to produce this trend.) > > In some cultures under some conditions, infanticide may be considered sick. > In others, it may be viewed as normal, practical, pragmatic, and important. > > I do not draw a line between deformed and normal newborns. If they are > unwanted by anybody, then let them be destroyed after a reasonable period > (say two weeks.) This policy would not rule out orphanages run by religious > groups (or perhaps adoptionages.) Just as animal lovers who sponsor the > ASPCA accept humane destruction of unwanted pets, we should accept humane > destruction of unwanted newborns. (However, I wouldn't go so far in my > analogy as to say they should be sterilized upon adoption. That thought > is repulsive to me.) Proclamation of humanity by the parents or by > adoption would confer all the rights that children normally enjoy today. > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh INFANTCIDE IS SICK! Just because the destruction of healthy newborns is accepted in the some so called "civilized" societies, should the barbaric idea be accepted in ours? Get your head out of your ass! Your reasoning would support the eradication of some ethnic group in the United States just because the controlling society of Germany in the 30's and 40's accepted the eradication of the Jewish people. On the other hand, your ideas may not be that twisted. Perhaps, if your parents would of known at the time of your birth that you would write supportive material for deformed ideas, they would of spared us both by having you destroyed shortly after you performed the only meaningful act you will perform in your life...your birth. Ken Gaskell ihnp4!ihuxf!bullfrog
sm@cadre.UUCP (02/22/85)
In article <365@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <353@enmasse.UUCP> mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) writes: >> SAY WHAT??? If the child is deformed and is going to live painfuly or die >> soon then "destroying" (mercy killing) him is one thing but to suggest >> that a healthy child (not fetus, abortion arguments to net.abortion or >> better yet /dev/null) should be killed if they arent adopted within a set >> time frame (2 weeks -> 17 years and 364 days) is SICK. If you are only >> suggesting this (adoption or else ...) for deformed infants, where do you >> draw the line? > >It is not sick. As any anthropologist could tell you, killing infants has >not been an uncommon practice in a large number of societies. Any anthropologist can probably also tell you than there are some cultures where it is acceptable (even desirable), to eat the flesh of their opponents who have fallen in battle or their dead heroes. Perhaps you could go one step further and suggest that unwanted children be used for food ("Give so that others may be served"). >In some cultures under some conditions, infanticide may be considered sick. >In others, it may be viewed as normal, practical, pragmatic, and important. Don't confuse morality with custom (although "moral" comes from the French "custom"). There are a lot of traditions practiced by ancient as well as contemporary cultures which, while (possibly) practical, may not be "right". One advantage to the sophistication of human communication is that human behaviors are able to evolve at a MUCH greater rate than behaviors in other animal species. Simply because another species or culture finds such behavior acceptable, it does not become the right thing to do. (Or, perhaps, you might also like to see us emulate certain insect species, where females destroy the males after copulation. That would sure help the cause of population control, decrease teen preganancy, and "fix" all sorts of social problems). >I do not draw a line between deformed and normal newborns. You don't draw a line between humans and animals either. >... Proclamation of humanity by the parents or by >adoption would confer all the rights that children normally enjoy today. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh In other words, the capacity to judge the humanity of any living creature lies with those of us who have already been judged to be human (by virtue of the fact that we survived). Or, we could pick one person; Idi Amin, perhaps. He's obviously human since he's survived. Sean McLinden
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/22/85)
> It is not sick. As any anthropologist could tell you, killing infants has > not been an uncommon practice in a large number of societies. Some American > indian cultures were supposed to have exposed one of a pair of twins; > one Indian caste (until recently) consisted only of men, always married out > of caste, and destroyed female offspring; and exposure of unwanted children > has been widespread in Europe (such as ancient Greece and Rome.) In China > today, there is widespread killing of female infants in the countryside > (strong political disincentives for multiple child families and strong > traditions for male heirs combine to produce this trend.) Whoah, boy. Just because people do it doesn't make it right. > > In some cultures under some conditions, infanticide may be considered sick. > In others, it may be viewed as normal, practical, pragmatic, and important. See above. > I do not draw a line between deformed and normal newborns. If they are > unwanted by anybody, then let them be destroyed after a reasonable period > (say two weeks.) This policy would not rule out orphanages run by religious Hey, wait a minute here. Who said that a particular person has to want somebody in order for that person to have a right to live? With that type of reasoning, why don't we just go out and shoot all the derelicts? Who wants them? They're no good to us anyways. > groups (or perhaps adoptionages.) Just as animal lovers who sponsor the > ASPCA accept humane destruction of unwanted pets, we should accept humane > destruction of unwanted newborns. (However, I wouldn't go so far in my > analogy as to say they should be sterilized upon adoption. That thought > is repulsive to me.) Proclamation of humanity by the parents or by > adoption would confer all the rights that children normally enjoy today. So, if I read you correctly, you're saying that the real test of humanity is the desire of someone, either a person or an organization to take care of these people. A problem: YOU ARE PUTTING AN ECONOMIC VALUE ON LIFE If this is so, what indeed is the value of a life? Is the only real value in life that which makes a person useful to society? And, finally, is life worth retaining if it is economically unadvaisable? I thought a life was precious, no matter how uneconomic was its contibution to society. Or are we only worth the chemicals in our make-up?!?!!! Sincerely yours, DAVE BROWN
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/23/85)
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. This proposal would encourage good birth control, because the alternatives would be abhorrent to many. 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. Call this a thought experiment. I haven't yet seen any negative argument yet that isn't reflexive squeamishness like yours, though I imagine there might be some good reasons why this shouldn't be adopted. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/23/85)
In article <2561@ihuxf.UUCP> bullfrog@ihuxf.UUCP (k. gaskell) writes: > INFANTCIDE IS SICK! Saying it louder doesn't make it so. Nor does obscenity. > Just because the destruction of healthy newborns is accepted in > the some so called "civilized" societies, should the barbaric idea > be accepted in ours? I haven't made such an argument. By pointing out that is not considered sick in some other societies, I was hoping to raise the argument above knee-jerk reactions. > Get your head out of your ass! Your reasoning > would support the eradication of some ethnic group in the United > States just because the controlling society of Germany in the 30's > and 40's accepted the eradication of the Jewish people. On the > other hand, your ideas may not be that twisted. Perhaps, if your > parents would of known at the time of your birth that you would > write supportive material for deformed ideas, they would of spared > us both by having you destroyed shortly after you performed the > only meaningful act you will perform in your life...your birth. Evidently I was wrong about the knee-jerk reactions. Once again, I haven't made the argument that "because they've done it, we should do it." We COULD do it. To decide to do this would require examination of its effects. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (02/24/85)
From: scott@gargoyle.UChicago ? (Scott Deerwester) >> A rejected newborn would be available for adoption, and if not adopted, >> humanely destroyed. Much as adoption at the ASPCA works. > >Do you seriously propose that because it works with dogs and >cats, we should try it with babies??? Are you willing to pay to keep each of them alive for the n months (say 3, times how many kids???) and pay for all their expensive medical treatment? That's what we (as taxpayers) are doing now. While I would not have killed the kid (isn't speculation wonderful?) I would have refused to take it. If the doctor is so worried about it, let him pass it along for adoption. (This is very hypothetical for me -- I can't imagine ever finding myself having a kid. (Flames on this point to net.abortion only.).) -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/25/85)
> 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? ================================================================================
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (02/25/85)
> Are you willing to pay to keep each of them alive for the n months (say 3, > times how many kids???) and pay for all their expensive medical treatment? > That's what we (as taxpayers) are doing now. > -Dragon Perhaps just the anti-choicers should pay for the expensive medical treatment. What I can't figure out is, why do the anti-choicers waste their time in protest marches when they should be out adopting dozens of unwanted kids? On the other hand, anti-choicers DO believe in murdering living human beings. That's the "solution" they have suggested, several times, be applied to their opponents, so that they will get their way. > (Flames on this point to net.abortion only.) That goes for this too.... I don't even bother reading net.abortion though. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/25/85)
In article <335@cadre.ARPA> sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden) writes: > Any anthropologist can probably also tell you than there are some cultures > where it is acceptable (even desirable), to eat the flesh of their opponents > who have fallen in battle or their dead heroes. Perhaps you could go one > step further and suggest that unwanted children be used for food ("Give so > that others may be served"). How stupidly inefficient. We could use them instead for organs. By the way, there are people in the US who consume human placentas as karma-free meat. Cannibalism of newborns is common among a host of animal species, under several kinds of circumstances. Cats regularly eat deformed kittens, and some animals consume their litters when apparently there will be insufficient food to feed them. Male lions who win a pride will try to kill nursing cubs so that the females will be ready to mate again sooner. There is nothing unnatural about cannibalism. Cannibalism is seldom practical among humans for a large number of reasons. If you want, I will detail them in another note. > >In some cultures under some conditions, infanticide may be considered sick. > >In others, it may be viewed as normal, practical, pragmatic, and important. > > Don't confuse morality with custom (although "moral" comes from the French > "custom"). Infanticide may be either or both customary or moral. > There are a lot of traditions practiced by ancient as well as > contemporary cultures which, while (possibly) practical, may not be "right". > One advantage to the sophistication of human communication is that human > behaviors are able to evolve at a MUCH greater rate than behaviors in other > animal species. Simply because another species or culture finds such behavior > acceptable, it does not become the right thing to do. (Or, perhaps, you might > also like to see us emulate certain insect species, where females destroy > the males after copulation. That would sure help the cause of population > control, decrease teen preganancy, and "fix" all sorts of social problems). I never made any such argument as "because another species/culture does something, it is right." I will say that we cannot immediately reject a practice as wrong if another species/culture does it. We need to examine the purposes served and applicability first. > >I do not draw a line between deformed and normal newborns. > You don't draw a line between humans and animals either. Correct. Instead I recognize similarities and differences. The world is too complex to characterize as "this side of the line is white and that side is black." > >... Proclamation of humanity by the parents or by > >adoption would confer all the rights that children normally enjoy today. > In other words, the capacity to judge the humanity of any living creature > lies with those of us who have already been judged to be human (by virtue > of the fact that we survived). Or, we could pick one person; Idi Amin, > perhaps. He's obviously human since he's survived. Fine. I shall allow a spontaneously aborted fetus to judge your humanity. What? I don't get to be absurd also? We are already making such decisions. Humans always have. These decisions have costs and benefits that affect us profoundly. Perhaps you wish to expand these benefits to new classes, such as zygotes. Fine. There are others even more willing to extend these benefits than you, to all animal life (as in the Jain sect in India.) Where should it stop? The answer is that we get to decide. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/25/85)
In article <8273@watarts.UUCP> dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) writes: > Whoah, boy. Just because people do it doesn't make it right. I never said that something is right because people do it. See response to McLinden for further explanation. > Hey, wait a minute here. Who said that a particular person has to want > somebody in order for that person to have a right to live? With that type of > reasoning, why don't we just go out and shoot all the derelicts? > Who wants them? They're no good to us anyways. Good point. However, say that derelect has a relative? Who gets angry? Rights are good working rules for staying out of trouble. Formalizing them helps prevent conflicts between opposing ideas of rights. > So, if I read you correctly, you're saying that the real test of humanity > is the desire of someone, either a person or an organization to take care > of these people. Real close: it's not really a test of humanity, but of forces for survival. That's why there are humane laws for animals and the ASPCA. For humans, support is more general. > A problem: YOU ARE PUTTING AN ECONOMIC VALUE ON LIFE > > If this is so, what indeed is the value of a life? > Is the only real value in life that which makes a person useful to society? > And, finally, is life worth retaining if it is economically unadvaisable? > I thought a life was precious, no matter how uneconomic was its contibution > to society. Or are we only worth the chemicals in our make-up?!?!!! Much as people are unwilling to face it, there is an economic value to life. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there is. The fact is, that if more money is spent for saving/prolonging human lives, more human lives will be saved/ prolonged. No matter how much money is spent. Each society places values on human lives in a host of different direct and indirect ways. From $5000 to have a contract killing, to $X per life saved to develop a new drug, to X lives lost per million tons of coal mined. We decide how much lives are worth. One individual may be worth nothing to one person, and much to another. They need not be all worth the same. Historically, they haven't. The simplest, most direct example is that slaves sold at different prices. Another example comes from the concentration camps, were very exact values were placed on the lives of the inmates. Generally, we dislike it when the value of a life is considered too low or too high (such as spending too much to save the life of a street person. You can bet that they aren't going to be the recipients of the latest, most expensive medical techniques.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (02/25/85)
First I want to say that I can't believe this guy could do such a thing. I wonder what his wife thought about it. I would vote guilty with minimal punishment. He should not go unpunished. karen
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/25/85)
Now, now, everyone knows the solution is to recycle unwanted infants into food :->
wong@rtech.ARPA (J. Wong) (03/01/85)
> Perhaps you could go one > step further and suggest that unwanted children be used for food ("Give so > that others may be served"). Jonathan Swift took it even further, he suggested raising Irish babies for English tables. (Swift was a noted satrist.) -- J. Wong ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!wong **************************************************************** You start a conversation, you can't even finish it. You're talking alot, but you're not saying anything. When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again. - David Byrne ****************************************************************