ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (10/24/84)
Brad Andrews says the following: > They have already extended the parents "rights" to after > birth, look at the baby doe case earlier this year where > the starve a child. Continueing down this path would > lead to killing babies for not being the right sex, as they > do in China, or for other "slight" reasons. He is referring to the "Baby Jane Doe case." Last year, a baby was born with a syndrome called spina bifida, whose symptoms included, among other things, a large hole in her lower back that left her spinal cord exposed. The decision involved was whether or not to perform surgery to close the hole. Whether or not this surgery were done, the child would be severely retarded, paralyzed from the waist down, and probably unable ever to care for herself. Surgery would probably extend her life, but she would still not live a normal span. What her parents decided was not to use any extraordinary means to prolong her life and let nature take its course. They continued to feed her and provide her with routine medical care. I saw an article a few weeks ago in the New York Times about the effects of this particular course of treatment: the hole in her back closed up without the surgery, and her parents were able to take her home. She recently passed her first birthday, and, as far as I know, is still alive.
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/26/84)
Where do you get that information? In the Baby Doe case they starved the baby, they did not just let nature take its course. Also, even if the parents did not want to take the "extra actions", there were others who would have. A married couple that are friends with my dad have a son with Down's Syndrome, and so I know that they can grow up to be loved children, regardless of the handicap. Brad Andrews
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (10/29/84)
Hold it Gang. There are several Baby Does. I think we are getting them a little mixed up. There is one, still alive, on Long Island, NY. Some of us are talking about that one. This is the one that has stirred up the Government. There was another one who was allowed to die by starvation. There are several more around the country also. We mostly hear about the one in our region. Let's not go for each others throats on this. We all seem to be talking about different Baby Does. T. C. Wheeler
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/31/84)
The one I was talking about was, I believe in Indiana earlier this year(during the summer I think). Brad Andrews
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (01/15/85)
> How is my attitude any diferent than yours? Will you ever be convinced that > abortion is murder? If not, shouldn't you leave? Or is this only a forum > for converting people who foolishly believe that abortion is wrong to change > their ways and allow it? (note the sarcasm) Why should you have any more right > to discuss here than I? Answers: (1) I don't know; I can't read your mind, but I suspect your attitude is different in many ways. (2) Maybe. (3) This doesn't need an answer. (4) I don't. But when you say "This is what I believe, I have no choice about it, and I am never going to change, and I believe it because it's right, so there!" my response is: "Well whoopee for you. You will probably not convince me of ANYTHING without reason. > Going on to the question of when life begins. If it does not begin at > conception, then when does it begin? At birth? When a child is 5 years old? > When he/she can fully care for himself/herself? What does life consist of? > This is the foundational question, and the reason why a loose belief in > regards to human life before physical birth leads to infant killing and > euthenasia(sp?). Surely you're not going to tell me that a sperm cell isn't alive! Actually, you're ignoring the most important question. You know, the one I asked a few weeks ago that no one has yet answered for me convincingly: why is killing a human different from killing an animal? I am, of course, asking somewhat rhetorically. It seems to me that until this question is answered completely, any argument about whether a fetus, or a baby for that matter, is alive is completely specious.
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/19/85)
The reason that killing an animal is not wrong(in my opinion) while killing a human is, was answered a few notes back, rather well. The basic question though is, who is man and is he different than a dog(for example)? He most certainly is, and I am not limiting this to one particular group of men either, they are all equally valuable. This is the same reason why I would have opposed slavery had it been around, because I believe, as the Constitution says, that each man has been bestowed with certain unalienable rights. If you do not believe that man is that much above animals, then this reasoning will not be true for you. Brad