From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Aug 08 2001 - 01:10:38 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Adrian Tymes writes
> > The mere potential future existence of an organism does not, in itself,
> > grant the potential organism any right to live, especially if its life
> > would detract from the quality of life of previously existing organisms.
>
> What do you mean "right"? Do you mean there should not be a legal right
> for that organism to come into being (I agree)? I don't know what else
> you could mean here.
I mean the "basic" right or "natural" right which some view it as one
duty of the law to encode. For instance, the famous American right to
free speech (even if it has been poorly implemented by American law
recently, IMO).
> > ...Otherwise, the only ethical activity for all human beings would be
> > constant, ceaseless reproduction, tempered only by the need to ensure
> > that newborns reach puberty.
>
> The *only* ethical activity? I'm sure that you don't mean to put that
> in anyone's mouth. You are probably criticizing the view that I hold,
> namely, that all other things being equal, there should be the maximum
> number possible of beings who can enjoy being alive. Further, we should
> strive to create as many as we possibly can, short of severely compromising
> the quality of our own lives (for the sake of our aforementioned selfishness).
Actually, I was criticizing a view slightly different from yours, which
holds that there should be the maximum number possible of beings
*regardless of all other considerations*, which is the viewpoint I see
a number of so-called "pro-life" arguments holding. A mother will
necessarily spend much of her own resources in having (and, usually,
raising) a baby (usually in concert with a father), which could
otherwise be used to raise the parents' quality of life. If one
deliberately wishes to spend these resources, then fine, but if one
finds oneself pregnant under circumstances where one does not wish to -
or is unable to safely - expend them, then one should not be forced to
degrade one's future life in this manner. The viewpoint I criticize
holds that even unwanted embryos must be given the chance to live, no
matter the cost to anyone else.
Make no mistake, it is the cost I object to, not the new life itself.
If pregnancy and raising children were cost free, this would be a
nonissue - but that is far from the case today.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:35 MST