Create a New Forum Owner Login Contribute & Create Your Member account VoyUser Login (see contribute) VoyForums Directory/Categories No-ads: Completely remove ads from your forum VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News Help Desk VoyForums Exchange FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions Search VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:56:29 03/02/09 Mon
Author: CatherineM.
Subject: This is indeed a murky question, and I am wondering (though this would be a discussion for another day and has alrady come up from time to time here) about the recurring issue of mercy-killing in the books.
In reply to: JessieR 's message, "maddiej--You’re right about the importance Jamie places on family, & that his ability to care for Bree’s child makes her case different from that of the angel-makers. But his position on the angel-makers still poses questions for me. To say that those women had no choice because they couldn’t protect & feed their children was to ignore the possibility of child abandonment, which was a frequent practice in the 18thC, & many cities had provisions for accepting such children. Jamie & Claire’s experience in Paris would have exposed them to this because the receivers of abandoned infants were often convent hospitals like the one in which Claire worked. Granted, institutionalization of these (mostly) illegitimate children created harsh conditions, but the practice would not have fallen into disfavor until much later in the 18thC, and would have morphed into some kind of social welfare program run by religious and community organizations by the early 19th. >>>inside>>>" on 07:16:37 03/02/09 Mon


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe Jamie hadn't quite thought the issue through in Paris? He was young and in the throes of his love and marriage. Could we read his tolerance of the angel-makers more as an immediate sympathy for the plight of the women like Louise rather than a definitive stand on the abortion question? I remember having such flawed reactions to moral questions when I was young. It was easy to see the immediate situation, but it took me longer to see less visible consequences. Then again, Jamie has committed murder (the guard at Ft. Williams when he rescued Claire), so maybe he empathizes with how people can do evil and remain worthy people. -- Carol P, 19:10:29 03/02/09 Mon


[ Edit | View ]