apteryx@ucbvax.ARPA (Brian Peterson) (08/08/85)
In the English language, words can have more than one meaning.
When the particular meaning implied is not clear, and the topic
is rather emotional or controversial, there are problems.
The case in point is the word "life" (and similarly, "human").
One meaning of "life" is similar to "metabolism". It has to do
with organs, cells, biochemical processes, instincts, reflexes,
reproduction, etc. All plants, animals, and miscellaneous sludge
have this kind of life. Members of the species homo-sapiens,
at all stages of development including embryos and fetuses,
have this kind of life.
A second meaning of "life" is the set or continuum of experiences
that a creature with intelligence and emotions (etc.) has while it
exists. A "creature" having this kind of life might conceivably not
have the first kind (C3PO, HAL, etc). The point of these examples
is not to prove that such a case exists, ("life" of the second meaning
existing independently from the first sense), but that one can concieve
of the second kind of "life" independently from the first kind.
The abortion debate might be interpreted as attempts to determine
which of the two kinds of life an unborn homo-sapiens has, combined
with attempts to decide how important the two kinds of life are.
(This covers debates concerned purely with the qualities of the
fetus or embryo in question. It does not cover arguments concerned
with the effects on the aborters. It also does not deal with the
"I'm glad I wasn't aborted" argument, which I feel is bogus.)
Now for my personal stand:
I feel that it is "life" of the second meaning that is truly
>important<, when applied to homo-sapiens. "Life" of the first meaning
is not important, rather it is >necessary<, somewhat as paying the
rent and buying groceries is necessary. Life of the second kind
depends on life of the first kind for existence. (When your body
gets killed, the life you are living gets messed up. Either there
might not be "afterlife", or one might not want to proceed there
right away for various reasons :-) Life of the first kind does not
imply life of the second kind. (Do "lesser" creatures, such as
protozoans, "experience" there life, or are they just chemical
factories? Where to draw the line between lower and higher
creatures is a hard question.)
I feel that the second kind of life is not present until the first
weeks or so (not exactly sure) after birth in homo-sapiens. (I also
feel that other species, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee, have
this second kind of life.) Thus, abortion is not very bad, since
there doesn't even exist a life of the second type in the creature
being aborted. Prohibiting abortion is bad, becuase it interferes
with someone's life (second kind).
Other people might place different values on the two meanings of
life I described here, or they might feel that a fetus has more
experiences and feelings and concept of its environment than I.
Someone might even think that the whole issue in this article
is irrelevant. To reconcile differences, we need to find what
assumptions differ, and determine a method to find which match
reality. (Maybe look up psychological tests about when babies seem
to recognize people (particular or general), what kind of emotional
responses they give how soon in development, etc). Then we need
to find where values differ, given the same "facts" (assumptions)
for both sides. What to do with differing values is a harder problem....
Is anyone out there interested in my distinction between the two
definitions of "life" and how they relate to the abortion issue?
Brian Peterson
... !ucbvax!apteryxtw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/09/85)
What Brian has just told us, if I read him right, is that he feels that "life" (second kind) does not start until a week or so after birth. My question is, then "Is it OK to just toss the newborn out with the trash since it does not yet have "life"? What a wonderful concept. Right away we can eliminate abortion, right? After all, if it does not have "life", then it must be nothing more important than the egg shells and coffee grounds in the trash and we can thus just throw it out. Women can carry the fetus to full term and then pop it out and throw it away. Other than a few months of discomfort, there is no problem, right? No more abortion debates. Really, Brian, is that what you are trying to tell us? Life does not start until a week or so after birth? I don't think the most vocal pro choicer would even believe that one. T. C. Wheeler
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/14/85)
In article <186@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: > What Brian has just told us, if I read him right, is that he feels > that "life" (second kind) does not start until a week or so after > birth. My question is, then "Is it OK to just toss the newborn > out with the trash since it does not yet have "life"? What a > wonderful concept. Right away we can eliminate abortion, right? > After all, if it does not have "life", then it must be nothing > more important than the egg shells and coffee grounds in the trash > and we can thus just throw it out. Women can carry the fetus to full > term and then pop it out and throw it away. Other than a few months > of discomfort, there is no problem, right? No more abortion debates. > > Really, Brian, is that what you are trying to tell us? Life does > not start until a week or so after birth? I don't think the most > vocal pro choicer would even believe that one. Under certain conditions, infanticide is and has historically been widespread, expedient, and perhaps moral. In a society such as ours, where starvation is rare, where adoption and abortion are widely available, where the worlds finest medical care can solve many congenital problems, there is small need or desire for infanticide. In other societies, life and death are more pressing. A major family goal is to produce successful children, who will have families of their own and be able to provide for parents in their old age. When resources are limited, it may make more sense to destroy a deformed infant and bear another, normal one; or to destroy an infant you can't afford so that older siblings won't starve. We live in an era of growth, where most people can choose to bear the number of children they want, and usually can afford them. So to us, infanticide seems unnecessary or undesirable, except perhaps in rare cases. A little bit of anthropology should help to dispell this parochialism. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
kew@bigburd.UUCP (Karen Wieckert) (08/22/85)
To T C Wheeler: Excuse me for using the header of an unrelated article, but I believe you have not answered a few questions about your recent posting about Planned Parenthood. I would like to repeat the request. Could you please forward the address and telephone number of your local Planned Parenthood office? If you cannot supply their address and number, would you please forward the name of your town so I can get information about this Planned Parenthood office? I need this information in order to ever believe anything else you ever write. I can respect anti-abortion people if they are honest. However, T C Wheeler, you are certainly suspect... ka:ren