dolan@ihnp1.UUCP (Mike Dolan) (03/30/84)
<line-eater food> There is a very serious attitude stated both implicitly and explicitly in two postings by Kenn: "Re: misconception" and "Re: Re: killing human beings [Mostly reply to Laura]". This attitude is that inconvenience and discomfort of human beings is more important that the life of a human being. This is exactly the attitude that worries me sick. If we can choose to kill a human being (and Kenn stated that he considered the fetus a human being) because it would impinge on our future plans, our comfort, our level of income, ... then why draw the line at abortion? Why not choose to kill anyone who is in my way as I proceed down the path I have chosen for myself in life? When my mother and father get too old to care for themselves, why shouldn't I just kill them - after all, they are just a drain on my resources and/or society's resources? Why shouldn't we kill all members of a particular ethnic background that we may not like living next door to us? Why not kill anyone with a misshapen arm or leg, or people who can't walk, or blind people.....? It certainly would be a lot easier if I didn't have to concern myself with the impact they make on my life in taxes and support for special aids to the handicapped. I could stretch out the list of questions at the end of the last paragraph but I won't. I think my message is clear. If you allow the killing of a human being in one instance for other than the reason of defending the physical life of another human being, why can't you allow the killing of a human being in other instances? This attitude is exactly why some people point back to Nazi Germany where a similar disregard for human life was prevalent. If we allow the killing of human beings for convenience in one instance, where do we stop? Have a good day, Mike Dolan AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan