"Peter C. McCluskey" wrote:
>
> lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
> >Adrian Tymes writes
> >
> >> Some say that, whenever faced with [the] choice, the only ethical
> >> decision is to raise the embryo - but I disagree, and I suspect most
> >> people on this list also do.
> >
> >Some people do not wish the embryo raised because they selfishly
> >don't want it to compromise their lifestyle. That is their complete
>
> Does it need to compromise their lifestyle? There doesn't appear to be
> any shortage of people trying to adopt most kinds of babies. Many of them
> would probably be willing to pay mothers who would otherwise have late-term
> abortions to carry the fetus until it is viable and then let them adopt it.
> I suspect the only obstacle to this is the government.
This has been raised so many times in all the abortion
discussions that you would hope there is a FAQ somewhere.
Carrying a pregnancy to term is physically rough on the body and
emotionally/psychologically a very powerful experience. It is a
very difficult thing to carry a baby to term and then give it
up. Being pregnant and having a baby is very disruptive. To
have to do this just because one accidentally got pregnant would
be an extremely major imposition. It would very much be
involuntary servitude to the fetus if the woman did not desire a
child at this time. This should be the end of the matter. How
many people would love to adopt is not relevant.
Most abortions are not late-term. This should also be in the
FAQ.
What you are proposing seldom makes any sense at all regardless
of what government does or doesn't say.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:10 MDT