poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (01/29/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 29 Jan 85 Volume 5 Number 5
Contents: Abortion/Binary Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 Jan 1985 1126-PST
From: Richard M. King <DKING@KESTREL.ARPA>
Subject: Clarification of my 2nd hypothesis on why abortion isn't murder
My abortion submission was rougher than I thought. I did a very poor job of
explaining the Schrodinger's Kid hypothesis. Here's another try at it...
Schrodinger was a physicist who asked us to consider an opaque box
containing a cat, a poison capsule, and a device connected to a
quantum-mechanical event that would break open the capsule and kill the cat
with probability 1/2. He argued that, pending observation, the box
contained neither a live cat nor a dead one but a "superposition of states".
Two such boxes would have the same contents in some real sense, even though
in "fact" one could hold a live cat and one a dead one. (Some people have
taken this a bit further and noted that the room containing the experimenter
and the box contains a superposition of states even AFTER the box is opened:
<live cat, happy experimenter> and <dead cat, horrified experimenter>. This
is another story.)
I am using this famous thought experiment as a source of an anology. Of
course it is true that a womb contains a specific fetus in some abstract
sense. However, in a real sense it contains a superposition of all possible
issue of the parents involved. When one thinks about a fetus, one may try
to develop a mental picture of what the kid will look like, act like, BE
when it is born, but the mental picture is a superposition of states. "I
wonder if it will have my nose or your nose? Will it be a boy or a girl?"
Suppose a couple conceives Monday. They will form a mind picture. I claim
that the mind picture will be virtually identical to one formed if they
instead decide to conceive Tuesday, and substantially the same as the mind
picture they had on Sunday when they were thinking about having a baby.
This is true even though the probability that the non-existant Monday fetus
is identical to the real Tuesday fetus is less than 2^-48.
When an amniotic tap is performed to determine the presence or absence of
(say) Tay-Sach's Disease, they ALWAYS WITHOLD THE SEX OF THE FETUS IF THE
DISEASE IS PRESENT AND AN ABORTION IS INDICATED. This hypothesis claims
that the reason for this witholding is to avoid collapsing the superposition
of states in the parents' minds; we don't want to think of such a fetus as
an individual.
In support of this hypothesis, I offer the following: you are certainly less
horrified by some large number of deaths in Ethiopia than by a like number
of deaths in your town. When a relief organization wants to tug your
heartstrings, what's the first thing they do? They show a picture, a video
clip if they can. They give a biography if they want you to "adopt" a
single kid. Surely you've seen the ads "Adopt xxx; feed her for $0.43 per
day. She is a student ..., her mother ..., etc." Your picture of an adult
Ethiopian is LESS complete than that of your 2 day conceptus - you don't
even have IDEAS about whose nose he might have! I claim your willingness
to inconvenience yourself to save someone's life is a monotonically increasing
function of how much you know or think you know about them (with the exception
of dislikes).
If you got this far, thanks for your patience!
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1985 17:59 EST
From: Jim Aspnes <ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Robots vs. The Genetic Monster
I'm not sure the taste-based argument of relative utility in certain
situations (clearing tables, etc.) is necessarily valid, given the
adaptibility of the average person over a few generations (in any case,
I would much rather see a robot clearing a table than a large, pseudopodal
creature sucking up the leftovers).
A better argument for genetic engineering appeared in a collection of
somewhat ecotopian novellas I read many years back. In one, a city-born
travelling salesman attempts to demonstrate a gas-powered motorcycle
to a group of farmers possessing fairly advanced genetic engineering
skills. After demonstrating that his motorcycle is capable of achieving
speeds of ~90 kph, compared to the local average for "horses" of about
60, one of the farmers walks up to the salesman and says
"Great animal, son. How many to a litter?"
There are very definite advantages (and a few drawbacks) to self-reproducing
menials.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu 17 Jan 85 14:53:14-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: re: spectrum of rights
Just a couple random comments:
1) Regarding the question of "why abortion isn't murder", I suggest
that, regardless of what interesting rationalizations we come up with,
the truth is that many of us think of a fetus as somewhat less than
human. This all ties in very nicely with the discussion on a spectrum
of rights for various creatures, which has already made clear that
younger humans have fewer rights than older ones. And a fetus is, at
best, a very young human. But I observe in myself that I react to
discussions about a fetus as if it lay somewhere between an infant and
a pet (where pet-type animals have more rights than, say, insects, but
fewer rights than humans). I use the term "rights" here to mean
anything granted automatically to the creature in question.
2) Jim Aspnes <ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Ah, but we already assign a spectrum of developing rights based on
presumed degrees of sentience: in New Jersey, when I grew up, one
could ... vote at 18, and drink at 19.
I think it's a sad commentary that in many states, one is presumed to
require a greater degree of responsibility/sentience to drink than to
vote. Perhaps it is an indication of how certain our state
legislatures are that we cannot have much effect by voting (whereas we
could actually hurt someone by drinking irresponsibly).
annette
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 18 Jan 1985 11:15-EST
From: sjc@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Clinic Vigils
Dick,
FYI with regard to this:
*PS: a way to prevent abortion clinic bombings would be to occupy the clinics
*at night. This would be especially important Monday (anniversary of Roe v
*Wade). You have to publicize this occupation.
Just this morning (18 January 1985) I heard on NPR that NOW is
sponsoring a series of clinic vigils this weekend through Monday. The
people participating are all volunteers. Judy Goldsmith said that NOW
is holding these vigils in the hope that having people inside the clinic will
prevent bombings. There are about 5 locations that will not be
occupied due to unusually high risk. They are also considering extending
the program after Monday.
Sue
(sjc@mitre-bedford)
------------------------------
Date: Mon 21 Jan 85 15:28:14-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Rights and Privileges (Re: Rights/designer genes)
Your distinction between rights and priveleges is bogus, in the
context of this discussion! They are all social arrangements made by
agreement, although not necessarily by specific agreement of each
individual.
It is sensible to draw a disticntion between individual
action/abilities and the constraints of the
world around you--my "yacht" comment was just a jab at people who
try to impose equality of outcome rather than equality of
opportunity, and was not central to the discussion.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Wed 23 Jan 85 10:35:05-PST
From: DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA
Subject: Abortion and Binary Rights
Re Dick King's "Why Abortion isn't murder.":
1) The "Surprise Hypothesis" - we now have
the solution to refugee problems, the African drought, in fact all problems
with the third world. Since these people's "hold on life is tenuous", the
most efficient solution is now moral, eliminate the problem by eliminating
the source of the problem.
2) "Schrodinger's Kid" - It is evident
that there are many groups whose members are not specific and can be easily
replaced. I am sure that whoever works out the technical details of the
final solution to the third world problem will be happy to turn his talents
to the problem of the Blacks, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.
Re Binary Rights:
I would contend that one of the lessons learned during our past
umpteen thousand years of cultural history is that rights can only be
successfully defended when they are binary. As soon as you start dividing
people into those with full rights and those with partial rights you have
started down the slippery slope. Jefferson knew what he was saying when he
insisted on "certain inalienable rights". The minimum set to whom these
rights pertain can only be a species. Every attempt to subdivide the species
has ended in disaster because the criteria are always arbitrary. We personally
may value cognitive ability but it is easy to imagine, for example, a society
which values willingness to conform. In that society then, the arguments
advanced here to recognize fewer rights for those with lesser cognitive
ability could be applied to those with lesser willingness to conform. You
might even be able to imagine a situation where an emminent Physicist might
be reasonably declared not human and thus devoid of any rights because he
refuses to conform - demonstrating his lack of humanness. Once you accept
the principle that it is possible to deny full human status to any member
of our species for any reason whatsoever, you have accepted the position of
the racist and are simply arguing the details of application. I believe that
one of the lessons of history is that every society that has attempted to
deny human status to a portion of its population has paid a heavy penalty.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------