Re: rights for late-term and yet unborn human beings...

From: Robert Bradbury (
Date: Sun Jan 23 2000 - 03:26:32 MST

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Instead of pushing the valuation back towards the younger end of the
> > spectrum, it is probably much more rational to push it *ahead*
> > to the older end of the spectrum (though this flies in the face
> > of the emotional ties that soft wet cuddly babies generate).
> This seems to be the real problem with the most extreme pro-choice
> position, that it is tantamount to support for infanticide. A mother
> who gives birth to a baby but finds after a few days that it is too much
> work should be able to smother it and throw it away, by this logic.

I would say that "rationally", there probably are (rare) cases when
infanticide is justified. I don't think the case you cite however
is one of them. The mother has made a substantial investment in
producing the child and there are many parents who have trouble
having children. So giving the child up for adoption is the logical

Infanticide should only be considered in situations where the support
of the child threatens the support of other children (who have a higher
information content), or some careful analysis indicates that the
support of the child would result in a net decrease of the resources
of a society.

Please note that these are my opinions and do not represent those of
the Extropy Institute or extropians in general.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:32 MDT