regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/09/85)
>}So, our difference of opinion is the fundamental difference of "is a fetus >}a life, or isn't it, and if it is, when does it gain that status?" Very >}simple, really. We disagree, but I can accept the validity of your stance >}(if I haven't distorted it yet again). >Yes, we disagree. It would be hard to "agree to disagree" on the issue >of human life and the right to life. So, the debate continues... Well, now, I don't know. After all, I can agree to disagree because I don't see it as a "right to life" issue. You may have some trouble agreeing to disagree because you do, but that's not really my problem, is it? I continue to debate because I respect intelligent viewpoints, not because I buy your philosophy on the subject. >}Re the social reality of women-as-sole-parent, Paul writes: >}>I would venture to say that the availability of abortion might have >}>contributed a good deal to this situation. Instead of balancing the >}>inequity by holding men more responsible for the children they help >}>conceive, pro-choice folks fought for the right to abortion to make women >}>more independent. (The right to "control their bodies" and all that). >}>This new independence places all the burden of child bearing on the women. >}>It also lets men be irresponsible. If a woman gets pregnant, the man >}>could feel more justified in leaving her on her own, since she can >}>get an abortion. Abortion has helped insure that more of the burden >}>of parenting is placed on the mother. >}Unfortunately, this is a chicken-of-the-egg argument. Which occurred as a >}result of which is a little hard to determine -- both occurred. Both >}exist. How do we deal with this today? >No, it's not a circular argument. If the problem is that the "burden" >of parenthood has been placed too much on the woman's shoulders, what >really alleviates the problem? Abortion on demand *accommodates* it. No, abortion on demand *avoids* the issue entirely, since there is no child that requires parenting. Seems to me the irresponsiblity of parents grew somewhat out of the late 60's (though it's roots were laid as far back as the dark ages, when men went to war and women stayed home with the kids). Abortion was ruled on in this country in 1973. Probably still too close to definitively claim one caused the other. After all, abortion was the birth control method of choice in the time of the Civil War, before it was subsequently declared illegal shortly afterward. Biological fact makes women the breeder, so even if the child is given-up upon birth for adoption (both parents relinquishing their rights and responsibilities as parents) it is the woman whose life has been affected physically for 9 months, the woman whose work life is affected by perceived requirements of her "condition", the woman whose social life is affected by the perceived wisdom of giving up the child. These issues do _not_ bear upon the man in any similar fashion, even if he wanted them to. Condemning more women to single-parenthood would _not_ increase the responsibility of the male partner. It might simply make women the guardians of sex as well as the guardians of children. Where they would rule, solely, on any issues of "tonight" or "not tonight" and the considerations would not have anything to do with the feelings of the parties, but the risks that the woman -- alone -- undertakes. And you can _bet_ that if the woman becomes the arbitrator of sex, she damn well would be _completely_ saddled with the responsibility for the child -- the men would become completely unresponsible -- after all, the abitrator said "yes" == her problem. >}>}The questions we are skirting are (1) when do "human rights" begin, >}>I have yet to see the pro-choice camp come up with consistent criteria >}>for this. (i.e. criteria that don't also exclude the rights of humans >}>we do want to protect.) >}The "pro-choice camp" is a group of individuals as diverse as the "pro-life >}camp". Consistency is not a marked characteristic of either. You might >}anticipate that the "pro-choice camp" will not offer a consistent criteria >}that protects the rights you insist upon when they do not necessarily >}believe in those rights. >My point was that the inconsistency comes in when the criterion used >to determine basic rights of individuals (especially the right to life) >also logically exclude the rights of other individuals whose rights >we take for granted. I think you've left yourself wide open to charges >of inconsistency in your following remarks: >}Personally, I think human rights begin when a human is born. I think >}that children are granted the right to life by the sacrifices of their >}parents and their society. I don't think they have any will or rights >}before they are born, and they have reduced rights until the date of their >}emancipation (18 - 21). > >One major point to make here is that the right to life is not in the same >category with other rights we grant to individuals as they become responsible >to carry them. The right to life it the most basic. Without it, it makes >no sense to talk about *any* other rights. It is not just one more right >along a continuum of rights. > I'm not sure I see what you mean by inconsistancy. Who says the right to life is "the most basic"? Upon being born, we aren't necessarily granted a "right" to life. It is possible to see it as a "sentence" to life. Who says that, by considering the rights of the individual I'm taking other rights for granted? In my view of things, the fetus doesn't have ANY rights just by virtue of being conceived, so there aren't any to take for granted. The fetus gains certain rights when it is born, and certain other rights when it reaches majority. >When you say human rights begin when one is born, I have to ask why that >is necessarily so. If it is arbitrarily so, there is nothing to prevent >the line from being drawn just as well somewhere else. This opens the >door wide for the demise of civilization, rather than allowing it to >function in a "practical sense", as you say. How are an individual's >rights dependent on the sacrifices others make for her? We could draw the line anywhere else, and the demise of civilization is always a possibility. Don't kid yourself. When a country goes to war, the whole fabric of it's people's expectations regarding their rights changes. And we've gone to war a lot in our history. Each civilization determines for itself what is a "human right", and it's arbitrary. Certain rights are relatively universal (the right to food, shelter, etc.) because a civilization wouldn't last without it. Certain other rights are not so universal (free speech, fredom of the press). >}Are fetuses "little lumps of protoplasm" or are they "human" in all the >}meaning of that word? Are _WE_ even more than "little lumps of protoplasm"? >Yes! We are little lumps of protoplasm that can ask ourselves these >kind of questions and consider the answers meaningful. If all you are >is a lump of protoplasm (and really believe it), then none of what you say, >do, feel or think has any real meaning or significance. Neither then, does >your life. It has meaning and significance insofar as I determine it has for myself. And insofar as that determination jibes with the determination of the civilization I've aligned myself with. >Your reasons >for supporting civilization might be good enought to keep *you* civilized, >but they really don't hold water. Anyone else may simply observe that >if they murder or steal they may get away with it. Civilization is essentially a contract between people. It is the agreement that we all undertake in order to live relatively safely together. My "personal" code for civilization is also the code other civilized beings have agreed to live under (though, of course, there are always the crooks who figure they can take a shortcut). The disagreements we contract-makers have are settled under the contract we have made (e.g., in a democracy, we vote, in a totalitarian state, the dictator decides). The level of "enlightenment" of our civilization might be linked to how freely each person who undertakes the contract is to make their contract, but it may not. So far, we haven't had a whole lot of wonderfully successful fascist states. But that doesn't mean they aren't possible. "Agreement" is of course as much a result of conscious decision as it is cultural bias and historical weight. >Can a parent who thinks children >are not so enjoyable, just kill them? You draw the line at birth. What >compels them to draw the line there also? The compulsion is the contract they've undertaken with society, which says that they also think killing children is a violation of rights. Our civilization does _not_ currently grant rights to fetuses. Rights are recognized as of the date of birth. Seems fairly consistant to me. Adrienne Regard