pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/01/70)
A response to Myke Reynolds. I have deleted some of the jumbled quotes. >It is possible to be unaware yet still be a thinking being, correct? I am in >favor of laws that protect thinking beings. Do you consider a fetus a >thinking being? I unjustly accused sas@lanl of being the type the would >make an analogy between the cattle industry and mass murder if he thought >it would help his point. It fits you quite well however.. You try to appeal >to emotional outrage by making analogues between existing people and fetuses. >And you do it over and over and over.... ad nausium on into the night.. A fetus may not be a thinking human being (according to your definition) at a particular point in her life. But neither is the person who is unaware *at that particular point in her life*. To you the future state or potential makes no difference with regard to the fetus. Why does it make a difference with regard to the person who is unaware at a certain point in time? Why can't the fetus simply be considered "unaware" for the time being? >If a fetus had a mind these would be valid points, and abortion would not >exist because it would be a clearly moral issue. There is not even a nervous >system at conception. Saying a fetus is not human is a poor way of expressing >the fact that fetuses are not thinking beings, I agree.. But the point >is obvious and shouldn't require making.. I wont make it again. The presence of a nervous system is not conclusive proof that a human being is a "thinking one". Anyway, what I am trying to get at is how you define the line between the protected and unprotected, and why you feel that line makes a difference. My point is that I don't think potential is irrelevant in considering whether or not the fetus is a rightful person. >>>Your solution is to force the mother to have a child. Bravo. Might I take >>>a guess at your social status? Middle-middle to upper class aye? Its not >>>an acceptable solution to you because it doesn't happen to be one of *YOUR* >>>problems. You can afford to raise a child under any condition or send your >>>daughter out of the country for an abortion. >>Don't you think this is a little ad hominem? >How is pointing out the fact that you will not be among the people hurt by your >views being carried out a personal attack? What difference does my social status or the fact that I won't be hurt personally make as to whether I'm right or wrong? Would I be right to say that you shouldn't be pro-choice because your life will never end in an abortion? You don't know anything about what I can or can't afford and it makes no difference one way or the other. You need to discuss the argument on its own merit. Is is wrong to be against racial discrimination if you're not in a minority? Do you think that everyone in the lower "social classes" agrees with you on abortion? Arguing with things that have nothing to do with whether or not the person's opinion is right or wrong is what is meant by and ad hominem argument. >>>If this were a perfect society I would be the first person to sign the bill >>>to outlaw abortions, it is far from it however. If there were solutions >>>there that were almost as good there wouldn't be any abortions! >>The legality of abortion on demand is one big reason that alternatives >>to abortion are not more readily available. A perfect society wouldn't >>need any laws, would it? Arguing against a law because society isn't perfect >>seems a little silly to me. >Maybe thats because you said it, not me. Then what did you mean by the >>>'ed quote above? >There is a problem, a woman is >pregnant, and for a number of possible reasons she cannot or does not want >to raise a child. Your solution is to force her to have it and thats that. >She can't afford to raise a child properly, or she is 15 and has to drop out >of highschool and be an unwed mother? so what, its not one of your problems, >she shouldn't have had sex in the first place. No, I'm willing to help her with alternatives. My wife and I have personally done so. How about you? If this teenager doesn't want an abortion do you tell her that it's too bad, she'll have to tough it on her own? Do you support both choices, or just abortion? I don't think that killing the fetal human is an acceptable answer to the problems. It may be the easiest answer for many people to give (it doesn't place any committment to the woman on the one giving it) but I think where human life is concerned, we ought to resort to other solutions to problems that don't involve killing. >>>>What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? >>>>Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? >>>I proposed no line of demarcation. It would be completely arbitrary. >>That is a big problem I have with much of the pro-choice argument. They >>tear down one set of criteria for a life/death dividing line and don't feel >>any obligation to provide a sound one of their own. Do you have a better, >>more consistent dividing line than conception? If so, demonstrate it. >Who is tearing anything down? I think the one we have now is fine. >You have to know the right answer to know that someone else's answer is >flawed? Non sequitur. No, I wan't to know what your answer *is*. Why aren't you telling me? You don't accept conception (that's what you're tearing down) so what's your line? >>The genetic pattern in the zygote contains that of *another* individual. >>The one in the body cell contains that of the individual to which the cell >>belongs. The zygote, barring interference, will naturally grow and mature >>as a human being. >[minor logistic flame] So all but one of any set of identical fetuses is >abortable?... Natural is a meaningless qualifier, black widows eat there mates >after sex. Perfectly "natural". Natural is what ever Mother Nature happened >upon, and the whole course how human life throughout the ages has been an >act of conquering nature and making it conform to his idea of a conducive >world.. Having children when one wants them and not when Mother Nature >arbitrarily says NOW is a very healthy thing I think. A body cell is not a fetus or a zygote, is it? That is where the qualifier makes the difference. >>Why don't you answer my >>question instead of evading it? I honestly would like to tell me >>what "social good" really means. You imply that I should accept what >>that standard dictates with regard to abortion. Well, then expounding >>upon the meaning of that standard is the least you can do. >Ok, here comes the obvious: Is this a oblique way of calling me stupid, or what? >In general, abortions occur in an environment unconducive to the raising of >children. Either the woman doesn't want a child, she isn't mature enough >to raise one, the male will not marry her, she cannot afford to properly raise >a child, etc.. Often a combination of several of these factors and others. How does the fact that no one "wants" a human being, make that person any less a human being? We don't advocate killing children who end up as wards of the state because no one wants them. >Scenario(1): Your 15 year old daughter comes home pregnant, the child that >got her pregnant is not likely to marry her, and she has the future of an >unwed mother who must drop out of highschool.. >Scenario(2): Your 15 son son gets his sweetheart pregnant. Do you have him >get married to the girl at 15 and try to raise a family when he should be >being raise? >Abortion is not something to be taken lightly, but neither are these >situations. They happened more then once in my highschool.. They sound like >extreme cases because of age, but they are the only ones I am personally >familier with. How do these scenarios affect the question of whether or not the fetus is a rightful human being? A girl may carry the child for term and get help in raising it and finishing school or she may opt for adoption. Sure there is plenty of inconvience (much of it attributable to the fact that abortion is made into such an easy option) but snuffing out a human life is not an acceptable way to get around such difficulties, I think. Kid's can also be helped to view sex more responsibly (like saying "No"). >>>I've already said this a few times before, but here goes again: >>>The life of the living is more important then the potential life of the >>>non-existent. If you can make the abstraction that a fetus is human, even >>>though it has none of the features that we consider human, only the knowledge >>>that it will eventually have them, then the abstraction that an abortion is >>>just as though the woman hadn't gotten pregnant is equally as valid. If thats >>>the way you want to look at it, thats fine. >>What are the features you refer to? If you don't lay them out then >>you have little ground from which to criticize. >A fetus is not cognizant. (you have that deja vu feeling too aye?) Neither is someone who is sleeping. If the fact that they will be at other times matters for them, why does it not matter for the fetus? Draw your line between killing a human being and abortion for me. At what point does the former become the latter? Yes, this is begining to look like a merry-go-round. If your not going to make a reasonable attempt at defining the line and telling me where it occurrs, then I'll be glad to get off. >>>Nobody is forcing their OPINIONS on you. >>>It is you who is trying to force a VERY opinionated opinion on >>>everyone else in the world. Such intellectual vanity is amazing. >>If I want to kill my neighbor, have more than one wife, own slaves, >>or rob a bank? What if I see nothing wrong with doing some of these? >>Yes, we do force our "opinions" on those who think like this. If that >>is not "intelectual vanity" then explain to me the difference. If you >>are unwilling to lay out your criteria for what constitutes a rightful >>human being then you have little cause for calling others vain. >Yes, society forces generally held moralities on its members. Who would say >killing your neighbor or owning a slave is a moral thing to do? No one >sane. Who would say abortion isn't immoral? Quite a lot of people actually. >About as many, if not more then the number that say the converse. So is the way we determine what is right to poll people find the majority opinion and label the dissenters insane. In the antebellum South you and I probably wouldn't have passed for being sane. So was slavery right at that time and place? Why is being against slavery the "sane" thing to believe now? By what standard do you determine who is sane? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (01/01/70)
>I'm glad you agree the life of the mother is more important than the >life of the unborn. It should then follow that you believe the unborn >should not have the same FULL protection of the law that born human >beings do, i.e., abortion should not legally be considered murder. >You have conceded that the unborn should not legally be considered >human beings, since if they were, there would be no reason to prefer >the mother's life to the life of the unborn. >If I have put words in your mouth, please tell me where I went wrong. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan The position of virtually all pro-lifers is that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, then the fetus's life may be taken in self-defense. This is not the same thing as saying that the fetus is not human. charli
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (08/31/85)
First, let me say that I'm in the rather novel possition of having been
almost aborted... (I only recently deduced this and had it confirmed, and it
is only indirectly related to events in my life.. That is
to say that the reason I was almost aborted was the same reason I was eating
dehydrated eggs for breakfast in my early childhood...)
Being in this position, I can rather clearly see both sides of te issue,
I rather like existing, miserable as my childhood was. I also see what an
unwanted child can do to the lives of two people just barely out of childhood..
My parents married, not out of love but out of social obligation.. (I'm a clearly
visable buldge in my parent's wedding pictures)
Their marriage lasted a stormy 4 years, and I doubt they have spoken in 10
years now.. They could hardly deal with their responcibility to each other,
much less the responcibility of a child.. My father, with his 1 percentile
i.q., does part time secretarial work.. My mother is remarried to some
handsome shmuck who wont even give her enough money for her blocoma (sp? its
phonetic..) operation which I may well end up paying for (I'm 17 by the way..)
Its no sob story, but their having a child at just the wrong moment probably
ploped my parents from the upper-middle class to hardly middle class at all.
Everyone considers themselves moral, yet opinions on this moral issue are
split down the center.. moralities, being the ephemeral things they are,
will always sway with the tides of humanity.. Legalization, or illegalization
of abortion should be based on its impact on sociaty.. In my own humble opinion,
more people with shittier lives is not better.. If I had been aborted, what
difference would it make to me? I would never have existed. A fetus has the
potential to be a human, but so does any given sperm and egg.. I was most
certainly not cognizant 2 months after conception.. I think most anti-abortion
advocates sketch over the realities of life in their zeal to ruin someone
elses with their misguided morality..
--
Myke Reynolds
Office of Telecommunications and Networking
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke
<insert obligitory silly little piece of wit here> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/03/85)
Sorry i am not using e-mail. My system spits it all up. i just wanted to say that this article is written from a very interesting viewpoint and should be read by all participants in net.abortion. > Everyone considers themselves moral, yet opinions on this moral issue are > split down the center.. moralities, being the ephemeral things they are, > will always sway with the tides of humanity.. Legalization, or illegalization > of abortion should be based on its impact on sociaty.. In my own humble opinion, > more people with shittier lives is not better.. If I had been aborted, what > difference would it make to me? I would never have existed. A fetus has the > potential to be a human, but so does any given sperm and egg.. I was most > certainly not cognizant 2 months after conception.. I think most anti-abortion > advocates sketch over the realities of life in their zeal to ruin someone > elses with their misguided morality.. > -- > Myke Reynolds > Office of Telecommunications and Networking > Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 > ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke > > very good article, Myke. -todd jones
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/05/85)
Deciding that one's own life wasn't worth saving is one thing (though one wonders why, if they had it so bad, they still think its better to live) but deciding that, based on your own example, the lives of others born under similar circumstances aren't worth saving either comes pretty close to playing God. Just because you think your life was bad doesn't mean others who haven't really had the chance to live it yet will think so too. At least you had the chance to live your life and decide for yourself *about your own life*. I'd like to see everyone have that same chance. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (09/07/85)
In article <5839@cbscc.UUCP>, pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > Deciding that one's own life wasn't worth saving is one thing. . . You are konphused, sir, my life is well worth living, but my reply to the taunt of "ask any kid how he would feel about having been aborted" is, "how could I care?" I would never have existed. Thats like asking me how I would feel if my parents had had half their wits and used contraceptives. > . . .example, the lives of others born under similar circumstances > aren't worth saving either comes pretty close to playing God. I didn't say they should have been aborted, I said you have no right tell anyone they MUST have a child. I have seen first hand how having a child and a family when one isn't ready for it, emotionally, or financially, can destroy two very promising lives. Were you ready to raise a family when you were in highschool? When an abortion is possible, there is no entity, if there were, this would be a clear moral issue. There is only the potential of a sentient being. You are trying to use your morality to draw a line of demarcation. Where will that line be when a human life can be created from a skin cell underneath your toenail? You argue from the standpoint of morality and religion where the issue is lost in mirky vagueness.. There is no universal morality, and certainly no universal religion.. (I can see the ethnocentric eyebrows raised at that one.) I argue from the point of social good. The issue is clear there, and it would appear that the people who run this country know it. -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke <insert obligitory silly little piece of wit here>
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/08/85)
>> Deciding that one's own life wasn't worth saving is one thing. . . > >You are konphused, sir, my life is well worth living, but my reply to the >taunt of "ask any kid how he would feel about having been aborted" is, "how >could I care?" I would never have existed. Thats like asking me how I would >feel if my parents had had half their wits and used contraceptives. My point was that the circumstances that surround birth have no bering whatsoever on whether abortion is justified. If human life has any value the circumstances under which that life is born don't affect that value any more than the color of the child's skin. In what sense would you never have existed? Abortion is not done on an non-existent human. It's true that the question of how would you feel if you had been aborted is silly. But it is just as silly for any human at any stage of her life. If we can kill people instantly and painlessly so that they "never knew what hit them", is the killing then justified? Your argument seemed to imply that since the fetus may not realize she is being killed, it is therefore acceptable to kill her. Why just the fetus? >> . . .example, the lives of others born under similar circumstances >> aren't worth saving either comes pretty close to playing God. >I didn't say they should have been aborted, I said you have no right tell >anyone they MUST have a child. I have seen first hand how having a child and >a family when one isn't ready for it, emotionally, or financially, can destroy >two very promising lives. Were you ready to raise a family when >you were in highschool? My position is that killing one's child, wheter born yet or not, is not and acceptable solution to the problems surrounding pregnancy. It certainly is not the only solution. >When an abortion is possible, there is no entity, if there were, this would >be a clear moral issue. There is only the potential of a sentient being. >You are trying to use your morality to draw a line of demarcation. Where >will that line be when a human life can be created from a skin cell underneath >your toenail? What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? "Creating" a human being from a skin cell is still in the realm of science fiction. For all we know it may always be in that realm. I see no cumpulsion to base our ethics on the possibilities that we may dream up, even if I thought it would make a difference. When, and if, human clones become reality, we can deal with it. >You argue from the standpoint of morality and religion where the issue is lost >in mirky vagueness.. There is no universal morality, and certainly no universal >religion.. (I can see the ethnocentric eyebrows raised at that one.) >I argue from the point of social good. The issue is clear there, and it would >appear that the people who run this country know it. I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept of "social good". -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/10/85)
> [Paul Dubuc] > Deciding that one's own life wasn't worth saving is one thing > (though one wonders why, if they had it so bad, they still > think its better to live) but deciding that, based on your own > example, the lives of others born under similar circumstances > aren't worth saving either comes pretty close to playing God. > Just because you think your life was bad doesn't mean others > who haven't really had the chance to live it yet will think so > too. At least you had the chance to live your life and decide > for yourself *about your own life*. I'd like to see everyone > have that same chance. ------- The same argument Paul uses here against abortion can be used with equal validity in favor of promiscuity and/or prostitution. 1) Right-to-lifer to child of prostitute by customer: "How would you feel if your mother had had you aborted?" 2) Me, to same child: "How would you feel if your mother had chosen another line of work? I know its dumb, but it makes just as much sense as your argument, Paul. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (09/11/85)
In article <5853@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >My point was that the circumstances that surround birth have no bering >whatsoever on whether abortion is justified. If human life has any value >the circumstances under which that life is born don't affect that value >any more than the color of the child's skin. Human life has value, but a fetus is not a human life, it is the potential of a human life. >In what sense would you never have existed? Abortion is not done on >an non-existent human. Clashing definitions; I don't mean biological existance, I mean cognative existance. >If we can kill people instantly and painlessly so that they "never knew what >hit them", is the killing then justified? Your argument seemed to imply that >since the fetus may not realize she is being killed, it is therefore acceptable >to kill her. Why just the fetus? Poor analogy, being unaware does not make one non-cognizant. >My position is that killing one's child, wheter born yet or not, is not >and acceptable solution to the problems surrounding pregnancy. It certainly >is not the only solution. Your solution is to force the mother to have a child. Bravo. Might I take a guess at your social status? Middle-middle to upper class aye? Its not an acceptable solution to you because it doesn't happen to be one of *YOUR* problems. You can afford to raise a child under any condition or send your daughter out of the country for an abortion. If this were a perfect sociaty I would be the first person to sign the bill to outlaw abortions, it is far from it however. If there were solutions there that were almost as good there wouldn't be any abortions! >What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? >Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? I proposed no line of demarcation. It certainly wouldn't be sentience.. A case could be made for it being after birth. It would be completely arbitrary. What I was arguing is where it shouldn't be, at conception. That one celled animal contains the genetic pattern of an individual, so do most of the cells in your body...which leads to... >"Creating" a human being from a skin cell is still in the realm of science >fiction. For all we know it may always be in that realm. I see no cumpulsion >to base our ethics on the possibilities that we may dream up, even if I >thought it would make a difference. When, and if, human clones become >reality, we can deal with it. I'm quite sure you will be able to claim your moral code works under all situations. I'm not going to patronize you with interludes about what people like you thought of the idea of walking on the moon 20 years before it happened. 4 years ago when I was in grammer school in "science" class we were shown a biology film. It discussed such things as artificial insemination, surrogate impregnation (transfering fertilized eggs), and cloning. Examples of all 3 were shown. The first 2 in the cattle industry and the last on salimanders. I'm not quite sure what to make of someone who doesn't have a grammer school child's knowledge of the subject he makes sweeping statements about.. >I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone >as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you >support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept >of "social good". Ok, you tell me how forcing women to have unwanted children and women dying of improperly preformed abortions is a service to sociaty? I've already said this a few times before, but here goes again: The life of the living is more important then the potential life of the non-existent. If you can make the abstraction that a fetus is human, even though it has none of the features that we consider human, only the knowledge that it will eventually have them, then the abstraction that an abortion is just as thought the woman hadn't gotten pregnant is equally as valid. If thats the way you want to look at it, thats fine. Nobody is forcing their OPINIONS on you. It is you who is trying to force a VERY opinionated opinion on everyone else in the world. Such intellectual vanity is amazing. -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -Lazarus Long
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (09/11/85)
In article <5853@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >My point was that the circumstances that surround birth have no bering >whatsoever on whether abortion is justified. If human life has any value >the circumstances under which that life is born don't affect that value >any more than the color of the child's skin. Human life has value, but a fetus is not a human life, it is the potential of a human life. >In what sense would you never have existed? Abortion is not done on >an non-existent human. Clashing definitions; I don't mean biological existance, I mean cognative existance. >If we can kill people instantly and painlessly so that they "never knew what >hit them", is the killing then justified? Your argument seemed to imply that >since the fetus may not realize she is being killed, it is therefore acceptable >to kill her. Why just the fetus? Poor analogy, being unaware does not make one non-cognizant. >My position is that killing one's child, wheter born yet or not, is not >and acceptable solution to the problems surrounding pregnancy. It certainly >is not the only solution. Your solution is to force the mother to have a child. Bravo. Might I take a guess at your social status? Middle-middle to upper class aye? Its not an acceptable solution to you because it doesn't happen to be one of *YOUR* problems. You can afford to raise a child under any condition or send your daughter out of the country for an abortion. If this were a perfect sociaty I would be the first person to sign the bill to outlaw abortions, it is far from it however. If there were solutions there that were almost as good there wouldn't be any abortions! >What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? >Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? I proposed no line of demarcation. It certainly wouldn't be sentience.. A case could be made for it being after birth. It would be completely arbitrary. What I was arguing is where it shouldn't be, at conception. That one celled animal contains the genetic pattern of an individual, so do most of the cells in your body...which leads to... >"Creating" a human being from a skin cell is still in the realm of science >fiction. For all we know it may always be in that realm. I see no cumpulsion >to base our ethics on the possibilities that we may dream up, even if I >thought it would make a difference. When, and if, human clones become >reality, we can deal with it. I'm quite sure you will be able to claim your moral code works under all situations. I'm not going to patronize you with interludes about what people like you thought of the idea of walking on the moon 20 years before it happened. 4 years ago when I was in grammer school in "science" class we were shown a biology film. It discussed such things as artificial insemination, surrogate impregnation (transfering fertilized eggs), and cloning. Examples of all 3 were shown. The first 2 in the cattle industry and the last on salimanders. I'm not quite sure what to think of someone who doesn't have a grammer school child's knowledge of the subject he makes sweeping statements about.. >I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone >as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you >support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept >of "social good". Ok, you tell me how forcing women to have unwanted children and women dying of improperly preformed abortions is a service to sociaty? I've already said this a few times before, but here goes again: The life of the living is more important then the potential life of the non-existent. If you can make the abstraction that a fetus is human, even though it has none of the features that we consider human, only the knowledge that it will eventually have them, then the abstraction that an abortion is just as though the woman hadn't gotten pregnant is equally as valid. If thats the way you want to look at it, thats fine. Nobody is forcing their OPINIONS on you. It is you who is trying to force a VERY opinionated opinion on everyone else in the world. Such intellectual vanity is amazing. -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -Lazarus Long
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/11/85)
In article <1212@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> [Paul Dubuc] >> Deciding that one's own life wasn't worth saving is one thing >> (though one wonders why, if they had it so bad, they still >> think its better to live) but deciding that, based on your own >> example, the lives of others born under similar circumstances >> aren't worth saving either comes pretty close to playing God. >> Just because you think your life was bad doesn't mean others >> who haven't really had the chance to live it yet will think so >> too. At least you had the chance to live your life and decide >> for yourself *about your own life*. I'd like to see everyone >> have that same chance. >------- >The same argument Paul uses here against abortion can be used >with equal validity in favor of promiscuity and/or prostitution. > >1) Right-to-lifer to child of prostitute by customer: > "How would you feel if your mother had had you aborted?" > >2) Me, to same child: > "How would you feel if your mother had chosen another line of work? > >I know its dumb, but it makes just as much sense as your argument, Paul. My focus is not on how anyone feels. It is mainly on wheter or not we have the right to decide (based on our own personal experience or whatever) wheter or not another person's life is worth living and allow that she be killed. In the case of an abortion there is an existing life that is being killed. Abortion has an object (i.e. the fetus). There is no object when the woman has never even gotten pregnant. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/11/85)
In article <749@gitpyr.UUCP> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes: >In article <5853@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >>My point was that the circumstances that surround birth have no bering >>whatsoever on whether abortion is justified. If human life has any value >>the circumstances under which that life is born don't affect that value >>any more than the color of the child's skin. > >Human life has value, but a fetus is not a human life, it is the potential >of a human life. Why isn't it human life with potential? And why is that potential not important in considering whether or not we ought to be able to kill that life? >>In what sense would you never have existed? Abortion is not done on >>an non-existent human. > >Clashing definitions; I don't mean biological existance, I mean cognative >existance. OK. How do you define and measure cognitave existence so as to avoid committing what we would normally call murder of another human being? >>If we can kill people instantly and painlessly so that they "never knew what >>hit them", is the killing then justified? Your argument seemed to imply that >>since the fetus may not realize she is being killed, it is therefore >>acceptable to kill her. Why just the fetus? > >Poor analogy, being unaware does not make one non-cognizant. Why not? They seem to mean pretty much the same thing to me. What real difference does it make regarding the analogy? >>My position is that killing one's child, wheter born yet or not, is not >>and acceptable solution to the problems surrounding pregnancy. It certainly >>is not the only solution. > >Your solution is to force the mother to have a child. Bravo. Might I take >a guess at your social status? Middle-middle to upper class aye? Its not >an acceptable solution to you because it doesn't happen to be one of *YOUR* >problems. You can afford to raise a child under any condition or send your >daughter out of the country for an abortion. Don't you think this is a little ad hominem? My solution is what I said it is. Yes, I'm in favor of laws requiring people not to kill other people. Aren't you? Assuming that no one forced the mother to get pregnant, why is saying that she ought not to kill the child by abortion wrong? >If this were a perfect sociaty I would be the first person to sign the bill >to outlaw abortions, it is far from it however. If there were solutions >there that were almost as good there wouldn't be any abortions! The legality of abortion on demand is one big reason that alternatives to abortion are not more readily available. A perfect society wouldn't need any laws, would it? Arguing against a law because society isn't perfect seems a little silly to me. >>What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? >>Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? > >I proposed no line of demarcation. It certainly wouldn't be sentience.. >A case could be made for it being after birth. It would be completely >arbitrary. That is a big problem I have with much of the pro-choice argument. They tear down one set of criteria for a life/death dividing line and don't feel any obligation to provide a sound one of their own. Do you have a better, more consistent dividing line than conception? If so, demonstrate it. >What I was arguing is where it shouldn't be, at conception. That one celled >animal contains the genetic pattern of an individual, so do most of the cells >in your body...which leads to... The genetic pattern in the zygote contains that of *another* individual. The one in the body cell contains that of the individual to which the cell belongs. The zygote, barring interference, will naturally grow and mature as a human being. The body cell will not unless we impose an event upon it analogous to conception. How do you justify directly interfering in the life of the fetus and killing it and not also be providing justification for someone else to do the same with other humans based on the same general criteria? >>"Creating" a human being from a skin cell is still in the realm of science >>fiction. For all we know it may always be in that realm. I see no cumpulsion >>to base our ethics on the possibilities that we may dream up, even if I >>thought it would make a difference. When, and if, human clones become >>reality, we can deal with it. > >I'm quite sure you will be able to claim your moral code works under all >situations. I'm not going to patronize you with interludes about what >people like you thought of the idea of walking on the moon 20 years before it >happened. 4 years ago when I was in grammer school in "science" class we were >shown a biology film. It discussed such things as artificial insemination, >surrogate impregnation (transfering fertilized eggs), and cloning. Examples >of all 3 were shown. The first 2 in the cattle industry and the last on >salimanders. I'm not quite sure what to think of someone who doesn't have >a grammer school child's knowledge of the subject he makes sweeping statements >about.. I'm not saying that cloning isn't a possibiity. If it is, I don't think it makes any difference with regard to whether the fetus is a rightful human being. You seem to be arguing here, however, that just because some people disblieved things that have since become reality, then anyone who doubts that anything we may envision will come to pass is wrong. There are a lot of things that could prevent human cloning from becoming a reality. Things that may be unrelated to the technology itself (e.g. a war, funding shortage, other priorities, etc.). All I'm saying is that I don't feel the need to modify my ethics (even if I thought I had to, which I don't in this case) base on what *may* be possible. There is some point in discussing it, but the issue is academic until the event in question becomes reality. At any rate your suggestion that I should allow abortion now because cloning may be a possiblilty in the future seems as silly as telling a city planner that new roads should be imbedded with trolley tracks because it is possible to use trolley's in the future. Maybe we want to repeal part of the Constitution since it's possible that we will want to go back to owning slaves. This illustrates another problem I have with your examples. You seem to be using the principle that whatever is scientifically possible should be done and our ethics should bend to follow. Don't you think our ethics should have some say in what should be done? (e.g. What types of experiments should be performed on animals and humans.) Most people would say yes, except when they see implications for the abortion issue. Why? >>I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone >>as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you >>support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept >>of "social good"? > >Ok, you tell me how forcing women to have unwanted children and women >dying of improperly preformed abortions is a service to sociaty? I am not in favor of seeing any women die from any abortion. Your insinuation that that is the only concievable or acceptable alternative to legalized abortion on demand is fatuous. Why don't you answer my question instead of evading it? I honestly would like to tell me what "social good" really means. You imply that I should accept what that standard dictates with regard to abortion. Well, then expounding upon the meaning of that standard is the least you can do. >I've already said this a few times before, but here goes again: >The life of the living is more important then the potential life of the >non-existent. If you can make the abstraction that a fetus is human, even >though it has none of the features that we consider human, only the knowledge >that it will eventually have them, then the abstraction that an abortion is >just as though the woman hadn't gotten pregnant is equally as valid. If thats >the way you want to look at it, thats fine. What are the features you refer to? If you don't lay them out then you have little ground from which to criticize. >Nobody is forcing their OPINIONS on you. >It is you who is trying to force a VERY opinionated opinion on everyone else in >the world. Such intellectual vanity is amazing. If I want to kill my neighbor, have more than one wife, own slaves, or rob a bank? What if I see nothing wrong with doing some of these? Yes, we do force our "opinions" on those who think like this. If that is not "intelectual vanity" then explain to me the difference. If you are unwilling to lay out your criteria for what constitutes a rightful human being then you have little cause for calling others vain. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/12/85)
> >[Me] > >The same argument Paul uses here against abortion can be used > >with equal validity in favor of promiscuity and/or prostitution. > > > >1) Right-to-lifer to child of prostitute by customer: > > "How would you feel if your mother had had you aborted?" > > > >2) Me, to same child: > > "How would you feel if your mother had chosen another line of work? > > > >I know its dumb, but it makes just as much sense as your argument, Paul. ----- > [Paul Dubuc] > My focus is not on how anyone feels. It is mainly on wheter or not > we have the right to decide (based on our own personal experience or > whatever) wheter or not another person's life is worth living and > allow that she be killed. In the case of an abortion there is an > existing life that is being killed. Abortion has an object (i.e. the > fetus). There is no object when the woman has never even gotten > pregnant. ----- Fine. I did not mean to imply that your entire anti-abortion argument was dumb. I was referring only to the oft-heard argument "If your mother had aborted you, you would not be alive. What do you think about abortion now?" I have heard some right to lifers argue "What if <insert your favorite hero>'s mother had had him aborted?" These same argument could be used against contraception, fidelity, and chastity. The destruction of the fetus is, as it should be, the crux of the argument to outlaw abortion. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (09/16/85)
I am responding to some of Myke Reynolds' points in a conversation with Paul Dubuc. In article <749@gitpyr.UUCP> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes: >>What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? >>Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? > >I proposed no line of demarcation. It certainly wouldn't be sentience.. >A case could be made for it being after birth. It would be completely arbitrary. >What I was arguing is where it shouldn't be, at conception. That one celled >animal contains the genetic pattern of an individual, so do most of the cells >in your body...which leads to... Which leads to what? Your skin cells do not develop into new human beings. A fertilized egg, barring complications in pregnancy, will always form a new human being. Sure you could argue a line of demarcation at birth but I don't think it is a firm and immovable as a line at conception. And I would be glad to go in depth with you via mail, or here if people are interested. >>I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone >>as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you >>support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept >>of "social good". > >Ok, you tell me how forcing women to have unwanted children and women >dying of improperly preformed abortions is a service to sociaty? > >I've already said this a few times before, but here goes again: >The life of the living is more important then the potential life of the >non-existent. If you can make the abstraction that a fetus is human, even though >it has none of the features that we consider human, only the knowledge that What do you mean by this statement? My daughter was born six weeks early and she certainly looks human. According to all the classes and books I have had, she has looked human for a few months now even though she has been in the womb. If you had something else in mind, please explain. >it will eventually have them, then the abstraction that an abortion is just >as though the woman hadn't gotten pregnant is equally as valid. If thats the way >you want to look at it, thats fine. Nobody is forcing their OPINIONS on you. >It is you who is trying to force a VERY opinionated opinion on everyone else in >the world. Such intellectual vanity is amazing. >-- >Myke Reynolds I agree that the life of the mother is more important than that of the unborn. But I would only use this statement in a life or death situation for the mother, not just to justify abortions in general. Most abortions do not meet this circumstance, so I oppose them. Brian Wells ________________________________________________________________________________ James 1:5 ________________________________________________________________________________
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (09/17/85)
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc) writes: >>Human life has value, but a fetus is not a human life, it is the potential >>of a human life. [me] >Why isn't it human life with potential? And why is that potential >not important in considering whether or not we ought to be able to >kill that life? [1] >>>In what sense would you never have existed? Abortion is not done on >>>an non-existent human. [2] >>Clashing definitions; I don't mean biological existence, I mean cognative >>existence. [me] >OK. How do you define and measure cognitive existence so as to avoid >committing what we would normally call murder of another human being? [2] >How do you justify directly interfering in >the life of the fetus and killing it and not also be providing justification >for someone else to do the same with other humans based on the same general >criteria? [3] >>>If we can kill people instantly and painlessly so that they "never knew what >>>hit them", is the killing then justified? Your argument seemed to imply that >>>since the fetus may not realize she is being killed, it is therefore >>>acceptable to kill her. Why just the fetus? [4] >>Poor analogy, being unaware does not make one non-cognizant. [me] >Why not? They seem to mean pretty much the same thing to me. What real >difference does it make regarding the analogy? [5] >My solution is what I said >it is. Yes, I'm in favor of laws requiring people not to kill other people. >Aren't you? [6] It is possible to be unaware yet still be a thinking being, correct? I am in favor of laws that protect thinking beings. Do you consider a fetus a thinking being? I unjustly accused sas@lanl of being the type the would make an analogy between the cattle industry and mass murder if he thought it would help his point. It fits you quite well however.. You try to appeal to emotional outrage by making analogues between existing people and fetuses. And you do it over and over and over.... ad nausium on into the night.. If a fetus had a mind these would be valid points, and abortion would not exist because it would be a clearly moral issue. There is not even a nervous system at conception. Saying a fetus is not human is a poor way of expressing the fact that fetuses are not thinking beings, I agree.. But the point is obvious and shouldn't require making.. I wont make it again. > >>Your solution is to force the mother to have a child. Bravo. Might I take >>a guess at your social status? Middle-middle to upper class aye? Its not >>an acceptable solution to you because it doesn't happen to be one of *YOUR* >>problems. You can afford to raise a child under any condition or send your >>daughter out of the country for an abortion. >Don't you think this is a little ad hominem? How is pointing out the fact that you will not be among the people hurt by your views being carried out a personal attack? >>If this were a perfect society I would be the first person to sign the bill >>to outlaw abortions, it is far from it however. If there were solutions >>there that were almost as good there wouldn't be any abortions! >The legality of abortion on demand is one big reason that alternatives >to abortion are not more readily available. A perfect society wouldn't >need any laws, would it? Arguing against a law because society isn't perfect >seems a little silly to me. Maybe thats because you said it, not me. There is a problem, a woman is pregnant, and for a number of possible reasons she cannot or does not want to raise a child. Your solution is to force her to have it and thats that. She can't afford to raise a child properly, or she is 15 and has to drop out of highschool and be an unwed mother? so what, its not one of your problems, she shouldn't have had sex in the first place. >>>What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? >>>Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? >>I proposed no line of demarcation. It would be completely arbitrary. >That is a big problem I have with much of the pro-choice argument. They >tear down one set of criteria for a life/death dividing line and don't feel >any obligation to provide a sound one of their own. Do you have a better, >more consistent dividing line than conception? If so, demonstrate it. Who is tearing anything down? I think the one we have now is fine. You have to know the right answer to know that someone else's answer is flawed? Non sequitur. >The genetic pattern in the zygote contains that of *another* individual. >The one in the body cell contains that of the individual to which the cell >belongs. The zygote, barring interference, will naturally grow and mature >as a human being. [minor logistic flame] So all but one of any set of identical fetuses is abortable?... Natural is a meaningless qualifier, black widows eat there mates after sex. Perfectly "natural". Natural is what ever Mother Nature happened upon, and the whole course how human life throughout the ages has been an act of conquering nature and making it conform to his idea of a conducive world.. Having children when one wants them and not when Mother Nature arbitrarily says NOW is a very healthy thing I think. >>>I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone >>>as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you >>>support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept >>>of "social good"? >>Ok, you tell me how [a] forcing women to have unwanted children and [b] women >>dying of improperly preformed abortions is a service to society? >I am not in favor of seeing any women die from any abortion. Your >insinuation that that is the only conceivable or acceptable alternative >to legalized abortion on demand is fatuous. You are quite correct in this respect, and I insinuated nothing of the kind. Perhaps the A and B will help.... >Why don't you answer my >question instead of evading it? I honestly would like to tell me >what "social good" really means. You imply that I should accept what >that standard dictates with regard to abortion. Well, then expounding >upon the meaning of that standard is the least you can do. Ok, here comes the obvious: In general, abortions occur in an environment unconducive to the raising of children. Either the woman doesn't want a child, she isn't mature enough to raise one, the male will not marry her, she cannot afford to properly raise a child, etc.. Often a combination of several of these factors and others. Scenario(1): Your 15 year old daughter comes home pregnant, the child that got her pregnant is not likely to marry her, and she has the future of an unwed mother who must drop out of highschool.. Scenario(2): Your 15 son son gets his sweetheart pregnant. Do you have him get married to the girl at 15 and try to raise a family when he should be being raise? Abortion is not something to be taken lightly, but neither are these situations. They happened more then once in my highschool.. They sound like extreme cases because of age, but they are the only ones I am personally familier with. >>I've already said this a few times before, but here goes again: >>The life of the living is more important then the potential life of the >>non-existent. If you can make the abstraction that a fetus is human, even >>though it has none of the features that we consider human, only the knowledge >>that it will eventually have them, then the abstraction that an abortion is >>just as though the woman hadn't gotten pregnant is equally as valid. If thats >>the way you want to look at it, thats fine. >What are the features you refer to? If you don't lay them out then >you have little ground from which to criticize. A fetus is not cognizant. (you have that deja vu feeling too aye?) >>Nobody is forcing their OPINIONS on you. >>It is you who is trying to force a VERY opinionated opinion on everyone else in >>the world. Such intellectual vanity is amazing. >If I want to kill my neighbor, have more than one wife, own slaves, >or rob a bank? What if I see nothing wrong with doing some of these? >Yes, we do force our "opinions" on those who think like this. If that >is not "intelectual vanity" then explain to me the difference. If you >are unwilling to lay out your criteria for what constitutes a rightful >human being then you have little cause for calling others vain. Yes, society forces generally held moralities on its members. Who would say killing your neighbor or owning a slave is a moral thing to do? No one sane. Who would say abortion isn't immoral? Quite a lot of people actually. About as many, if not more then the number that say the converse. There you go making analogies calling MacDonalds a mass murder again... -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke "Too bad all the people that know how to run this country are busy cutting hair and driving taxi cabs." -George Burns
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/22/85)
> [Brian Wells] > I agree that the life of the mother is more important than that of > the unborn. But I would only use this statement in a life or death situation > for the mother, not just to justify abortions in general. Most abortions do > not meet this circumstance, so I oppose them. ____ I'm glad you agree the life of the mother is more important than the life of the unborn. It should then follow that you believe the unborn should not have the same FULL protection of the law that born human beings do, i.e., abortion should not legally be considered murder. You have conceded that the unborn should not legally be considered human beings, since if they were, there would be no reason to prefer the mother's life to the life of the unborn. If I have put words in your mouth, please tell me where I went wrong. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/29/85)
> [Bill Tanenbaum] > >I'm glad you agree the life of the mother is more important than the > >life of the unborn. It should then follow that you believe the unborn > >should not have the same FULL protection of the law that born human > >beings do, i.e., abortion should not legally be considered murder. > >You have conceded that the unborn should not legally be considered > >human beings, since if they were, there would be no reason to prefer > >the mother's life to the life of the unborn. > >If I have put words in your mouth, please tell me where I went wrong. ------ > [Charli Phillips] > The position of virtually all pro-lifers is that if the fetus threatens > the life of the mother, then the fetus's life may be taken in > self-defense. This is not the same thing as saying that the fetus > is not human. --- Of course it's not the same thing. A human fetus IS human. I worded my response badly. Change "legally be considered human beings" to "legally considered to have the same full rights as post-birth human beings." -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mcewan@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/04/85)
>>When an abortion is possible, there is no entity, if there were, this would >>be a clear moral issue. There is only the potential of a sentient being. >>You are trying to use your morality to draw a line of demarcation. Where >>will that line be when a human life can be created from a skin cell underneath >>your toenail? > > I draw the line of demarcation at conception and I believe that it is >both a moral and logical place for that line to be. The natural result of >conception is baby. Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with >no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its natural >course. When skin cells from under your toe can be used to create human life >I will still have a line of demarcation at conception. A skin cell left to its >natural course will protect you for a while and then die, flake off, but will >never naturally become another human being. > I draw the line of demarcation at ovulation. The natural result of ovulation is a baby. When an ovum is left to its natural course, its mother will respond to her natural sex drive and the ovum will develop into a baby. Unnatural practices such as abortion, contraception and chastity interfere with the natural order, and should be banned. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "I know what you are. Nut. Screwball. Flake. Lunatic. Fruitcake. Bats in the attic. Psycho. All your dogs aren't barking." "Are too! Are too! Woof! Woof!"