owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (08/04/84)
Sorry, but people "draw lines" all the time. The question is, is it fair or not? Some would say "I'd hire anybody, but I draw the line at blacks and women.", and would be rightly castigated. The line is drawn at an unfair place. So a reasonable question to ask, in the face of the differing behavior toward humans at different stages of development is, is it fair? If no good reason exists for placing the line where it is, then why put it there? The dependency principle given in the article seems plausible. Should we say, then, that the more dependent X is on Y, that Y has the greater right to kill X? And since a fetus is totally dependent on another for existence, that other person has the right to kill the fetus. (The quibble about the doctors and nurses helping the mother carry out her wishes, is about as substantive as the distinction between doing a murder job yourself, or hiring a hit man to do it for you. It is merely a quibble, however, and does not affect the validity, or invalidity, of the dependency principle.) Now, the last time I heard, the existence of dying children who could be saved by appropriate intervention, was regarded as a tragedy, and justifiable reason for turning the present administration out of office. Certainly, the economy is doing well, but we have **obligations**, based on the fact that those supposedly being maltreated are dependent on our actions to save them. HOWEVER, if the poor victims are TOO dependent, then we don't need to bother with them. OR if it costs too much, then we don't have to bother with them. OR if it's too inconvenient to help them, then we don't have to bother with them. Sorry, but I'm of the old school, who believed that my inability to help EVERYBODY does NOT relieve me of the responsibility of helping SOMEBODY. Ucls-cs.das apparently thinks that just because s/he can't help EVERYBODY, then s/he doesn't have to help ANYBODY. I don't blame him/her for not signing his/her name. But, in my opinion, the *total* dependency argument still needs to be answered, and I, for the moment, have nothing but a hunch to tell me it's a dangerous principle. Any pro-life people have any counter arguments, or any pro-choice people have any supporting arguments? I think the idea of the social contract might be of help, but I think I need some help from both sides on this one. (Somehow, I can't help but think of the cartoon of the young man leaning over to unplug his mother from the life support equipment, while his mom complained to a fellow patient "I should have aborted him when I had the chance!") Gerald Owens Owens@gatech