This argument regarding the mother's necessity relies wholly on her role in perpetuation, not creation. Two points: First, the man was as necessary an ingredient, as you say, for the production of that life. Not the perpetuation, clearly. So what you're talking about is not creation but perpetuation, sustenance. Hence, you have no moral grounds for decrying a scientist who uses an artificial womb from perpetuating, modifying, or destroying as many unborn as she or he prefers.
Second, you're using sustainability as your determiner of humanity. By this logic, it should be permissable for a doctor to unplug a premature baby; after all, it is the doctor who is sustaining by virtue of skill and technology, and not the mother at all.
Also, the mother or any other caregiver is every bit as necessary for an infant up until it is capable of foraging for its own food; why, by your logic, should one be disallowed from terminating a childhood as easily as a pregnancy?
P.S. You acknowledge your argument is not based on truth. You passionately defend difficult truths in other contexts, but because this one seems untenable-though-right, it seems you balk. Clearly, taking a pro-life position is very distasteful to many. That does not make it a row we ought not hoe.
Date: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:46:21 PM
Subject: Re: OT or OT? politics/Bush, et.al.
to continue: I'm on the laptop, so forgive the eKrrors. I was saying that the mother in fact is a necessary ingredient to produce life from that possibility. Do we have the right to force the mother to continue if she chooses not to do so?
The Red Sox just tied it up.