My students have a book chapter by John Harris to read and discuss in a course I teach every year (and which starts tomorrow for 2004!). Very trenchant. He's great -- really challenges our preconceptions. The class discussion is always good.
I'm sure there are times when parents of teenagers have considered the feasibility of retroactive abortion.
The problem with this the type of thinking in the article is that when accepted it promotes eugenics. Eventually, anyone with undesirable traits is on the chopping block. A very dangerous and "evil" path. John
If I may shift the topic just a bit . . . While John has not completely articulated the argument against eugenics, the core of this argument (philosophically speaking) is essentially the same as that presented by Peter Singer and J.M. Coetzee in regards to the killing of animals (minus the speciesism, of course) Jack
The practice of killing undesirables, mentally challenged, and those with physical infirmities was brought to the forefront in the 1930's. Let me try to remember now, that guy's name was Adolph something or other . . .
Both Peter Singer and John Harris have been labeled eugenicists. The comparison with Nazi eugenics has been courageously addressed (repeatedly) by Jonathan Glover.
Makes sense to me. You would think that they would be thanking him for making their case. Tony As far as the issue of the concept of life as salience in the environment, and how that interplays with the fetuses, newborns, and animals, I find it interesting, if there were animals that were human. We protect our own (or should,) and there is no inconsistency with that.
As my wife says - I brought you in, I can take you out. Unfortunately teenagers don't respond appropriately to death threats.