jel@digi-g.UUCP (John Lind) (07/27/84)
I have only been sporadically reading this group as work time permits,
and various logjams and news problems have added to the difficulty of
staying current, so please be patient if I am reiterating information.
I would like to KNOW if I am repeating, though [and I love mail].
The thing that apalls me is the idea that, since we don't know
(scientifically) when life begins, let's go ahead and have abortion
on command. What happened to margins of safety and the benefit of
the doubt? Isn't this the same as saying, since we aren't certain
that it is murder right now (though it well might be), let's go ahead
and do it?
Laura of utzoo alludes to a very important point. Who decides when
another person's life is worth living or not? Or whether they are
"worth it" to society? Not one single atrocity committed by the
Hitler power structure to the Jews was "illegal" -- they had made
sure that the proper laws were passed first. Though Oliver Wendell
Holms might lambaste me for the thought, "legal" is not the same
as "right", though we have a certain responsibility to achieve the
highest correlation that we can.
The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer demonstrated quite plainly where the
logical extension of society determining the right to life by
categorization can lead -- and has lead. This is certainly
a form of descrimination -- where's the ACLU on that point?
Off in left field? Oh, well, can't hit them all.
Hmmm. That was rather a shot-gun attack. I wish that I could
take more time to express these things which I regard as important
in a clearer fashion. What we have hear is a clear case of the
tyranny of the urgent. Obviously, I am trying to confront the
issues both of abortion on demand and abortion by rule of quality
of life. I must presume upon your patience and wit to sort
that out.
Of course, my opposition to abortion on demand could be construed
to be unduly biased. There is a fair probability that if abortion
on demand was a possibility 28+ years ago, that I would not be here.
My biological mother was 14 and there were a number of possibilities
as to who the sire might be. I don't know anything more about the
circumstances. I was adopted into a loving home of two people
who desperately wanted, but were unable to have, children.
I am quite pleased to be here, thank you, and do not take kindly
societal acceptance of a method of removing me in any stage of
development.
Naturally, I do not know that that confused 14-year-old would have
chosen to exterminate me had she the choice. I do know that others like
her are making that choice even as I type, and others like me will never
see the light of day. I am not Schwietzer, nor am I Beethoven nor
Einstein, but I believe that I, and others like me, have as much
of a right to give it a shot as any of you, EVEN AT THE INCONVENIENCE
AND TEMPORARY PAIN OF ANOTHER PERSON.
I do appreciate that a woman should have control over her own body.
However, the embryo is quite distinguishable genetic material from
anything which is strictly hers. It is, in some ways, regretable
that one life must inconvenience another for awhile, wanted or
not. That is the system and, for now at least, there is little
we can do to change it. If the child is not wanted, and the
technology develops, I have no objection to its nuture in some
other fashion -- I welcome that as a way to reduce the inconvenience
to the host (shall I say "mother" in this case?).
Right now, I see society permitting, condoning, approving, even
applauding an act which may be the wanton destruction of human
life. That is the issue to be dealt with first and foremost.
------
John Lind, DSC, 10273 Yellow Circle Drive, Mpls MN 55343
news : ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g
mail : { ihnp4!umn-cs, stolaf!umn-cs, umn-cme }!digi-g!jel
USnail: Starfire Consulting Services, PO Box 13001, Minneapolis, MN 55414