sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/07/85)
> I suppose comments could be made about many "pro-choicers" whose attitude > is "copulate and make the baby suffer". But if 'suffering' results from > an activity, who should bear its costs: the people who decided to engage > in that activity, or another person who didn't exist before the start of > the activity and therefore had no control over it? > > -- Thomas Newton The problem with your line of reasonnning is that you assume that things are binary: either the parents suffer or the child suffers. I think it is probably fair to say that no matter what, in this business of unwanted children, children suffer. If they are aborted, they suffer some physical pain for a short while; if they are brought up by parents who hate them, they suffer for most of their childhood; if they are given up for adoption, there's a fair chance that they might suffer some trauma as a result (although this is not as clear cut as the other kinds of suffering). But the parents (mother actually) usually suffer too except in the case of early abortions. When you have unwanted pregnancies, there is a fair chance that both the mother and the child will end up suffering. So what's your point? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/14/85)
> > I suppose comments could be made about many "pro-choicers" whose attitude > > is "copulate and make the baby suffer". But if 'suffering' results from > > an activity, who should bear its costs: the people who decided to engage > > in that activity, or another person who didn't exist before the start of > > the activity and therefore had no control over it? > > > > -- Thomas Newton > The problem with your line of reasonnning is that you assume that things are > binary: either the parents suffer or the child suffers. I think it is > probably fair to say that no matter what, in this business of unwanted > children, children suffer. If they are aborted, they suffer some physical > pain for a short while; if they are brought up by parents who hate them, > they suffer for most of their childhood; if they are given up for adoption, > there's a fair chance that they might suffer some trauma as a result > (although this is not as clear cut as the other kinds of suffering). > But the parents (mother actually) usually suffer too except in the case of > early abortions. When you have unwanted pregnancies, there is a fair chance > that both the mother and the child will end up suffering. So what's your > point? > -- > Sophie Quigley First of all, I don't see how you can claim that the children always suffer. There's always the alternative of adoption. Speaking from personal experience, I can definitely say that adopted children don't always suffer trauma -- both my sister and I were adopted and that fact has never meant a thing to either one of us. Considering the screening process, I wouldn't be surprised at all if adopted children got better homes on average than wanted natural children. Secondly, you can't assume that everyone who undergoes suffering wants to curl up and die. A lot of times, when faced with adversity, people get stronger in order to cope with it. Who are you to tell someone, "I've decided that you're going to suffer unless I kill you now, so I'm going to kill you now"? -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA