hal@finney.org writes in part:
>... However the reason is that there is an escape clause: anyone can give
>up a baby.
>No one is forced to keep a child.
Where did you get the absolutely dumb idea that 'anyone can give up a baby'
...you think babies are sme generic commodity?? Like, anyone can be
stripped clean of heritage, ancestry, tribe, relatedness, family,
identity...... to be made into a fake someone never born.
Everyone born deserves to be wanted, welcomed, loved by their very own
mother, (father too). The idea that a mother is replaceable and that babies
are interchangable is fundamentally ignorant.
>...You can have an abortion any time you want, but you must do it
>non-destructively.
There is no such thing, there is only the least amount of suffering.
>The unwanted fetus will be transfered to another womb, perhaps artificial.
>In effect you are giving it up for adoption.
Adoption? As in, destroying one's identity? The 'civil death' of the
mother? No one wants to be a replacement/adoptee, that is, a grateful slave
to infertile adopters.
>Could this be a compromise on the abortion issue acceptable to many parties?
Not a chance in Hal. In future, I hope we'll fully recognize the magnitude
of genetic ties and the ease and importance of 'uploading' into our own
flesh and blood.
DNA - You can't adopt it.
~ankara
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:12 MDT