melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) (10/06/86)
In article <648@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes: >In <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP>, pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) wrote: > >OK, Paul, if the same protection the state gives 2-year olds will >satisfy you as protection of the fetus, I'm satisfied too. If the >mother of a 2-year old absolutely refuses to care for a 2-year old, and >wants to give the child away, the child is taken away from her. Don't >impose on the mother's freedom. Just take the fetus away. >.... >I reply that you can tell a fetus from a child if you take it away from >its mother, give it to someone who will love it and wants to care for >it, and see whether it lives or dies. > >M. B. Brilliant Marty I have to disagree with this test. Medical science is getting closer and closer to the point that they can keep the fetus alive from conception out of a womb (or transplanted to another womb). I happen to be a (female) positive eugenicist. That means I care about what genes I allow to continue in the race. If a mental retard raped me and made me pregnant, I would want that fetus killed regardless of what miracles of medicine could save them because I don't want to be biologically responsible for allowing genes that I consider harmful to mankind to be perpetuated. Eugenics is a very dirty word nowadays, and I expect to get flamed severely. But I firmly believe that I have a right to want to choose the father of my children by genetic criteria. No man has the right to force me to bear his child if I believe his genetic contribution will damage either the child in particular or my future genetic lineage. For those inclined to flame, realize the difference between "positive" and "negative" eugenics. Negative eugenicists want to sterilize others carrying "bad" genes. Positive eugenicists are interested only in trying to increase the frequency of 'good' genes (by their own definition) through voluntary measures involving the bearers of those good genes. So to summarize: I can't accept viability (as defined by modern medicine's state of the art techniques) as the only criterion for judging whether a fetus must be saved. I as future parent have more long-term concerns. -- Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu)
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/07/86)
In <1233@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) wrote: >In article <648@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes: >>.... you can tell a fetus from a child if you take it away from >>its mother, give it to someone who will love it and wants to care for >>it, and see whether it lives or dies. >> >>M. B. Brilliant Marty > >I have to disagree with this test. Medical science is getting closer >and closer to the point that they can keep the fetus alive from >conception out of a womb (or transplanted to another womb). > >I happen to be a (female) positive eugenicist. That means I care about >what genes I allow to continue in the race. If a mental retard >raped me and made me pregnant, I would want that fetus killed regardless >of what miracles of medicine could save them because I don't want >to be biologically responsible for allowing genes that I consider >harmful to mankind to be perpetuated. > >Eugenics is a very dirty word nowadays, and I expect to get flamed >severely. But I firmly believe that I have a right to want >to choose the father of my children by genetic criteria. No man has >the right to force me to bear his child if I believe his genetic >contribution will damage either the child in particular or my >future genetic lineage. > ... > .... Negative eugenicists want to sterilize >others carrying "bad" genes. Positive eugenicists are interested only >in trying to increase the frequency of 'good' genes (by their own >definition) through voluntary measures ... This is a creative response, and I find myself on the other side of the argument from where I first thought I would be. I still think viability outside the mother's body is a criterion for personhood. If the fetus can be transplanted, that means the mother can refuse responsibility for it without killing it, and then the state can protect it without violating its mother's freedom. For practical purposes, the fetus has become, if viable, a person. I don't want the state judging the genetic fitness of a person. I find myself echoing the "right-to-lifers" in saying that there is no clear dividing line between a viable transplantable fetus and a child. If you start judging the fitness of a transplantable fetus, you will next judge the fitness of premature babies, then babies born at term, then children, then adults. I echo their question, "where will it end?" But I have always answered, "it ends at birth." When a fetus has been removed from the womb, it has been "born" (if viable) or "aborted" (if not viable), and its mother relinquishes control to the state. The key phrase is "No man has the right to force me to bear his child." Once you have had the fetus removed from your body, you are no longer bearing it. Killing it is, in your own terms, "negative" rather than "positive" eugenics, and I find it unacceptable. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/08/86)
In article <1233@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> melissa@trillian.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre) writes: >In article <648@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes: >>... you can tell a fetus from a child if you take it away from >>its mother, give it to someone who will love it and wants to care for >>it, and see whether it lives or dies. >>M. B. Brilliant Marty >I have to disagree with this test. Medical science is getting closer >and closer to the point that they can keep the fetus alive from >conception out of a womb (or transplanted to another womb). >I happen to be a (female) positive eugenicist. That means I care about >what genes I allow to continue in the race. If a mental retard >raped me and made me pregnant, I would want that fetus killed regardless >of what miracles of medicine could save them because I don't want >to be biologically responsible for allowing genes that I consider >harmful to mankind to be perpetuated. I don't think you are really disagreeing with Marty's definition of child vs. fetus; you're just saying that it doesn't matter if it's a child or a fetus. You want the fetus killed because it's (possibly) defective. Whether it could live if removed doesn't seem relevant, according to your view. Suppose that the fetus were removed and transplanted to another woman who did want it, or hooked it up to a life support system. Would you still claim a right to have it killed? And you ignore the possibility that the child of someone mentally retarded may be quite "normal." "Normal" parents occassionally have "retarded" children -- it seems like you haven't even considered the possibility that "retarded" parents might have "normal" children. To get to a more likely scenario, if you and your genetically superior man happen to conceive a less-than-perfect fetus, are you going to claim the right to have it killed? Does the opinion of the father-to-be count? (Apparently not, judging from the statement below). >Eugenics is a very dirty word nowadays, and I expect to get flamed >severely. But I firmly believe that I have a right to want >to choose the father of my children by genetic criteria. You certainly have the right to want to choose the father of your children by any criteria you find appropriate -- if you grant the man the right to want to choose the mother of his children by any criteria he finds appropriate. >No man has >the right to force me to bear his child if I believe his genetic >contribution will damage either the child in particular or my >future genetic lineage. Right, you're going to kill the fetus for its own good. To avoid what you perceive as 'genetic damage' (which is not by any means a foregone conclusion, nor utterly preventable), you demand the right to kill it -- how much more "damaging" can you get? >For those inclined to flame, realize the difference between "positive" >and "negative" eugenics. Negative eugenicists want to sterilize >others carrying "bad" genes. Positive eugenicists are interested only >in trying to increase the frequency of 'good' genes (by their own >definition) through voluntary measures involving the bearers of those >good genes. I don't see a practical difference -- if anything, what you call positive eugenics is worse. You don't want to sterilize the carriers of bad genes, you want to kill them (only if they are your offspring, of course). I have tried not to flame (though I confess I was so inclined). Why do you suppose 'eugenics' is considered a dirty word? Might it be because it reminds people of (how shall I put it -- mustn't use that other dirty word) previous attempts to 'purify' the race? Gary Samuelson
melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) (10/08/86)
In article <1234@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >Suppose that the fetus were removed and transplanted to another >woman who did want it, or hooked it up to a life support system. >Would you still claim a right to have it killed? Yes. That was (partly) my point in rejecting viability as the criterion. >And you ignore the possibility that the child of someone mentally >retarded may be quite "normal." "Normal" parents occassionally >have "retarded" children -- it seems like you haven't even considered >the possibility that "retarded" parents might have "normal" children. A valid point genetically, but my point was that the genetic gamble one way or another is mine to make. >To get to a more likely scenario, if you and your genetically >superior man happen to conceive a less-than-perfect fetus, are >you going to claim the right to have it killed? Does the opinion >of the father-to-be count? (Apparently not, judging from the >statement below). Absolutely. The opinion of the father does not count. (Warning: extremely flammable statement ahead:) If a man wants to pass on his genes and expects that a woman wouldn't want to because they are defective, he should make a legally binding contract with her beforehand on the matter. I consider that a man gives up ANY claim to his sperm (and products thereby) when he *gives* them to the woman in copulation. Just as he gives up legal claim to a piece of jewelry if he gives it to her for her birthday. Any other claims should be established in standard legal ways, primarily by written contract. I personally would have to be paid a hell of a lot of money to sign over my right to abort an unhealthy fetus. > >You certainly have the right to want to choose the father of your >children by any criteria you find appropriate -- if you grant the >man the right to want to choose the mother of his children by >any criteria he finds appropriate. I would certainly grant him that right, but he already has it. Men tend to do the ultimate choosing in terms of who he *gives* his sperm to. It's pretty hard to force it out of him! >>No man has >>the right to force me to bear his child if I believe his genetic >>contribution will damage either the child in particular or my >>future genetic lineage. > >Right, you're going to kill the fetus for its own good. To avoid >what you perceive as 'genetic damage' (which is not by any means >a foregone conclusion, nor utterly preventable), you demand the right >to kill it -- how much more "damaging" can you get? How on earth is existing (in the fetus) genetic damage preventable? It's already happened! Not for its own good usually. If the child is so flawed that I would consider aborting it to be for its own good, it must be in such bad shape that I have all sorts of other interests (like medical costs) which would lead me to abort it anyway. >>For those inclined to flame, realize the difference between "positive" >>and "negative" eugenics. Negative eugenicists want to sterilize >>others carrying "bad" genes. Positive eugenicists are interested only >>in trying to increase the frequency of 'good' genes (by their own >>definition) through voluntary measures involving the bearers of those >>good genes. > >I don't see a practical difference -- if anything, what you call >positive eugenics is worse. You don't want to sterilize the carriers >of bad genes, you want to kill them (only if they are your offspring, >of course). Why is that worse? (I don't expect you to defend negative eugenics, but you did just claim negative is [if anything] better than positive.) >I have tried not to flame (though I confess I was so inclined). Thank you. The net needs more rational people like yourself. >Why do you suppose 'eugenics' is considered a dirty word? Might it >be because it reminds people of (how shall I put it -- mustn't use >that other dirty word) previous attempts to 'purify' the race? That's exactly why it's a dirty word. That doesn't mean it should be, however. Love can be a dirty word if used by a rapist to describe his (twisted) emotions towards his victim, but that doesn't mean that the word doesn't have a legitimate use. >Gary Samuelson -- Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu)
melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) (10/08/86)
In article <652@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >I still think viability outside the mother's body is a criterion for >personhood. If the fetus can be transplanted, that means the mother >can refuse responsibility for it without killing it, and then the state >can protect it without violating its mother's freedom. My main problem with that is that modern medicine has (or will soon) reached the point where NO abortions will be allowed on the basis that the fetus is viable (can be kept alive outside of the mother for a full 9 months). I would rather accept an arbitrary time limit, like " you have X months to determine if the genetic makeup of the fetus is such that you wish to abort it - beyond that you may not kill it." Where X months is sufficient for reasonable determinations. Of course, as medicine improves, X may also drop. Until it does, however, I don't want technical, "miracles-of- medicine" viability preventing me from making an informed decision. I'd like to know, how do other pro-choice'ers deal with the fact that 0 months is rapidly becoming the age of viability? [...] >I echo their question, "where will it end?" But I have always >answered, "it ends at birth." When a fetus has been removed from the >womb, it has been "born" (if viable) or "aborted" (if not viable), and >its mother relinquishes control to the state. What if a $50 operation = abortion (kills it) but a certain $100,000 procedure can keep it alive at exactly the same stage? Viable according to what level of medical technology (and what price?) Would you force me to beggar myself to pay for an operation that would enable the State to keep the fetus alive until it can be adopted? Can we as taxpayers afford for the State to pay for such expensive medical procedures? I consider these to be very real questions, that need answering before I can accept viability as my overriding criterion. >The key phrase is "No man has the right to force me to bear his child." >Once you have had the fetus removed from your body, you are no longer >bearing it. Killing it is, in your own terms, "negative" rather than >"positive" eugenics, and I find it unacceptable. I don't understand this at all. HOW I remove it can very well determine whether it is still alive when I walk out of the clinic. One procedure costs more money than the other. Who should pay the difference? Does anyone even have the right to force me (at their financial expense) to choose one over the other? >M. B. Brilliant Marty Here in the early 1980's, I can accept viability as a good dividing line, because it still gives me sufficient time to make the choice that I consider crucial. My concern is that that will not continue to be the case in the future. -- Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu)
amq@caip.RUTGERS.EDU (Amqueue) (10/10/86)
In article <1242@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> melissa@trillian.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre) writes: >I'd like to know, how do other pro-choice'ers deal with the fact that >0 months is rapidly becoming the age of viability? and >What if a $50 operation = abortion (kills it) but a certain $100,000 >procedure can keep it alive at exactly the same stage? Viable according >to what level of medical technology (and what price?) >Would you force me to beggar myself to pay for an operation that >would enable the State to keep the fetus alive until it can be >adopted? Can we as taxpayers afford for the State to pay for >such expensive medical procedures? >-- >Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu) One of the things pro-lifers say is "But why dont you carry it and then let it be adopted? Lots of people want to adopt babies." I say: fine, let *them* take care of it. If I want to abort the thing, it is a safe bet that I want *nothing further to do with it*. This includes monetary considerations. The "obvious" solution (ready? :-) is for whatever charitable groups are advocating adoption to create and sustain creches for these unwanted growing things until they can be adopted. That way, they bear the burden for what they are advocating, and people are free to support it or not as they wish (or can afford). It cant cost that much more to maintain 50 pieces of equipment as it down to maintain 10... certainly not 5 times more, as much of the overhead can adn will be shared. In fact, they could do that now, and thus allow abortions even later... remove the now barely viable creature and give it to somewhere to nurture it. It probably wouldnt have much more impact than to create legislation claiming that babies (and I use that word reservedly) could not be "aborted" (should we now say "removed"?) until *after* they were viable under these considerations, so that all (or almost all, given potential complications) would be saved. Sponsor of Our Lady of the Holy Incubator Adoption Agency (anyone want to join the bandwagon?) /amqueue In the meantime, ***KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!!!!!***
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/11/86)
In <1242@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) asked for other views, but also seemed to ask me a question: >In article <652@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >> >>I still think viability outside the mother's body is a criterion for >>personhood. If the fetus can be transplanted, that means the mother >>can refuse responsibility for it without killing it, and then the state >>can protect it without violating its mother's freedom. > >My main problem with that is that modern medicine has (or will soon) reached >the point where NO abortions will be allowed on the basis that the >fetus is viable (can be kept alive outside of the mother for a full 9 months). ... >What if a $50 operation = abortion (kills it) but a certain $100,000 >procedure can keep it alive at exactly the same stage? Viable according >to what level of medical technology (and what price?) >Would you force me to beggar myself to pay for an operation that >would enable the State to keep the fetus alive until it can be >adopted? Can we as taxpayers afford for the State to pay for >such expensive medical procedures? I would not force you to beggar yourself. My reasoning is similar to that involved in the care of the terminally ill. Preserving life is a fine thing, but our society simply can't afford to preserve all life at all costs. The way we go about it, we lose the lives of people who live in such conditions that they never reach a hospital, and spend fantastic resources on people who do get in. I think that's a mistake. I consider myself to be a pragmatist, hence not absolutist. A pragmatist says (oversimplified) if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but if it don't work, you can't convince me it's right. If a destructive abortion costs $50 and a nondestructive removal can be done for $50 more, and a recipient woman is ready and waiting, the state might well be entitled to tax you the extra $50. But a system that would force you to spend an extra $100,000 to preserve something you could recreate as recreation would be what I call broke. But as I said before, once the mother is rid of her fetus, the public interest takes over. She gets the child if she wants to care for it, but not if she wants to kill it. If you want to practice eugenics you can make your choices privately. But as soon as the state has a reasonable (and compelling a woman to complete pregnancy, or spend $100,000, is not what I call reasonable) chance to participate in the determination of what human material shall live and what shall die, I want the state to choose life by law. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1