NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48087

Text File | 1992-11-16 | 3.9 KB | 81 lines

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48087 alt.abortion.inequity:5126
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!bru!bmc
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (/home/bmw/usenet)
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14:29:27 GMT
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|>
|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
|> >|> [e-mail] (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> >|>
|> >|> The child should not be killed, in utero or ex utero.  Period.
|> >|> Adoption doesn't result in the child's death, therefore it's perfectly
|> >|> acceptable.  If the mother carries the child to term, SHE certainly hasn't
|> >|> abdicated responsibility.  Has the father?  Depends on where he's at.
|> >|> If he isn't helping to take care of his lover and their unborn child,
|> >|> then, yes, he's abdicated his responsibility.
|> >|>
|>
|> >So, your argument is that it is acceptable and permissable to abandon
|> >the child to the gods of expediency after it is born, provided that
|> >the action does not cause the immediate death of the child.
|>
|> You are having trouble reading.  I said a child should not be killed
|> in utero or ex utero.  Abandoning a newborn or toddler is indistinguishable
|> from killing that child.

No trouble reading, I just want to know how long (in your opinion) the time
period between the child's conception and the child's death can be before the
parents may be excused from responsibility for that child. Right now, the
time period is from conception to walking, does it extend farther?

|>                          You may feel that abandoning a child is
|> acceptable.  That is not surprising.  You are pro-choice.
|>

Good attempt, but I'm not pro-choice.

|> >Now, just to clarify things, say a child given is adopted by a radical
|> >religious cult. As it happens, an "time period" after the adoption, the child
|> >is killed/dies, and this event is made public through an investigative report.
|> >Are the biological parents still absolved from their resposibility? How
|> >much time must pass between the time of giving the child up for adoption
|> >and the child's death before the biological parents are freed from
|> >responsibility to the child.
|>
|> Parents have a moral responsibility to make certain that their children
|> are cared for.  If they put the child into a situation which may
|> reasonably be believed to be a safe and caring environment, they have
|> fulfilled their responsibility.  The people who have accepted responsibility
|> for that child's care are responsible for that child.
|>

From this I gather that the time period may be a matter of micro-seconds, provided
that the parents believed that they placed the child in a safe
environment. Now, what is the test of a safe environment, and
does a safe environment include psychological safety as well
as physical?

--
--Bruce

"There is something about the outside of a horse
 that is good for the inside of a man"
                W. Churchill
---------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]    [phone]    fax: [phone]
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,    Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW