flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (08/06/85)
Earlier I carefully phrased, and answered, one of the two central questions of the abortion debate. Here's my reasoning. By "backtracking" I mean the practice of considering an individual's life valuable because of the life ahead of her. I think most people would agree that: 1) it's most important to save children first in dangerous situations; 2) it's more tragic when the young die because "they had their whole lives ahead of them"; 3) if a person has only a few minutes left to live anyway, saving her life becomes less serious; 4) it's at least as repugnant to kill a newborn animal as an adult of the same type; and so on. I think that what's going on in all these judgements is "backtracking": concern for individuals based not only on what they are now but also what they will be. My view is that a creature deserves the same concern and protection of its life given to the adult it will become, as soon as it can have an experience of any type. When it has an experience of any type, its "mental life" (if you will) has begun; and I think "backtracking" should apply over an individual's mental life. One's mental life is at least one of the things (I do NOT say the only thing) that makes one important -- that makes life worth living. And once an individual's life becomes important, it becomes a proper subject for "backtracking". The untiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek "Thank God I'm an atheist!"
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (08/19/85)
[This may be a repeat of Message-ID: <1117@umcp-cs.UUCP>. The first time I tried our computer's file system was full, so I'm tying again] Earlier I carefully phrased, and answered, one of the two central questions of the abortion debate. Here's my reasoning. By "backtracking" I mean the practice of considering an individual's life valuable because of the life ahead of her. I think most people would agree that: 1) it's most important to save children first in dangerous situations; 2) it's more tragic when the young die because "they had their whole lives ahead of them"; 3) if a person has only a few minutes left to live anyway, saving her life becomes less serious; 4) it's at least as repugnant to kill a newborn animal as an adult of the same type; and so on. I think that what's going on in all these judgements is "backtracking": concern for individuals based not only on what they are now but also what they will be. My view is that a creature deserves the same concern and protection of its life given to the adult it will become, as soon as it can have an experience of any type. When it has an experience of any type, its "mental life" (if you will) has begun; and I think "backtracking" should apply over an individual's mental life. One's mental life is at least one of the things (I do NOT say the only thing) that makes one important -- that makes life worth living. And once an individual's life becomes important, it becomes a proper subject for "backtracking". The untiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek "Thank God I'm an atheist!"