tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (02/13/85)
I don't like causing pain. I don't like causing pain because I understand
what it feels like, and I would not wish that on anyone, operating on the
assumption that if we all don't wish it on anyone, there will be less pain.
There is a certain set of reactions that animals (us included) feel as pain.
I don't mind killing animals, as long as they are not in pain (or very much
pain at all). I figure that an animal's consciousness is pretty much limited
to spatial models, with temporal models being instinctual (not explicitly
felt by the animal). Thus, they don't have much of a concept of their own
death, or their own existence, other than that given them by the instinct to
survive. So killing them, as long as they are not in pain, is not something
they would object to. They don't understand it well. (They don't feel it.)
Humans, on the other hand, are much better at perceiving time, and building
models involving time. A human's understanding of pain also involves time.
We can understand and fear our own death: much of our activity is not based
in the here and now, in the immediate; but is based in the future, in the
culmination of plans and ideas. A human's perception of pain is much richer
and intangible because of this. (This comparison between animals and humans
is a relative matter, of course.)
I dislike the idea of killing humans because I can also understand a human
notion of pain. I share the ability and desire to model using time, and to
invest a significant portion of my life to the conscious anticipation of
future events. I count on my continued existence for happiness in the
here and now. I directly understand that other people feel the same way.
I respect that. Animals don't feel that way.
From what I can tell about pre-babies, they don't see time as a "human"
would. They have no notions about it other than the here and now. All
I know is that some time after birth, they develop a sense of time, and
an understanding of their future. Birth is the latest point where we can
recognize that that sense is lacking. So, I have no trouble with allowing
abortions of pre-babies.
Especially because I think it is more important for women to have control
over their own bodies than it is for us to not kill something that may
be a human being one day. (I am not female.)
Tracy Tims ihnp4!utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy
Human Computing Resources Corporation utcsri!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 dciem!hcr!hcrvx1!tracyjohnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (02/22/85)
> From what I can tell about pre-babies, they don't see time as a "human" > would. Isn't this the basic premise upon which all types of rasiscm is found. The thought that others do not "measure up" to what is norm. You correctly quoted the word human since biologically it is one as we are. > They have no notions about it other than the here and now. All > I know is that some time after birth, they develop a sense of time, and > an understanding of their future. Birth is the latest point where we can > recognize that that sense is lacking. So, I have no trouble with allowing > abortions of pre-babies. Do you believe that, before a child utters a word, he has no concept of words? Do you think that a neon sign lights up upon each stage of development? Do you think there is any possiblity that a child may have developed a sense of time and an understanding of future in a way that no words could express? And if there were words, what with his immature vocal capabilities and irregular body movements, would his inability to express the concept seal his doom. > Tracy Tims ihnp4!utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy > Human Computing Resources Corporation utcsri!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy > Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 dciem!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy You use phrases such as "From what I can tell..." and "All I know is..." implying views from your limited perception. Easy, we all have limited perceptions. That's why conscientious hunters don't shoot at moving bushes. You also said ".. sometime after birth..." implying uncertainties. From the midst of all this misgiving, You see nothing wrong with abortion. But if your perceptions are wrong, (we all must face that possibility), you would be inflicting pain, an atrocity from your points previous. Let's be sure. Mike Johnston
root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (02/26/85)
I am new to USENET, this group so maybe what I say has been said, Sorry. I find abortion abominable. I think, for the time being, abortion should be legal. The problem is that the need for abortion has been created by us as a society, but that sin is visited upon the unfortunate woman with the unwanted conception. I couldn't imagine abortion being tenable in a communal society. A child is the benefit and responsibility of all. Mothers are abandoned long before they abandon their children. -Barry Shein, Boston University
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (02/27/85)
> > > From what I can tell about pre-babies, they don't see time as a "human" > > would. > > Isn't this the basic premise upon which all types of rasiscm is found. The > thought that others do not "measure up" to what is norm. No. The basic premise of racism is that certain human beings may properly be treated differently because of their race. The original author made no mention of race, and probably means his/her observation to apply to babies (or "pre-babies") of all races, including his/her own. This is a cheap debating tactic. Take something you don't like, such as abortion, ask if it isn't the same as something most people dislike, such as racism, and you have perpetrated a nice, cheap ad-hominem attack under the guise of righteousness. > You correctly > quoted the word human since biologically it is one as we are. > The author obviously quoted the word "human" in order to indicate that, in his/her usage, it was meant to exclude pre-babies. > > They have no notions about it other than the here and now. All > > I know is that some time after birth, they develop a sense of time, and > > an understanding of their future. Birth is the latest point where we can > > recognize that that sense is lacking. So, I have no trouble with allowing > > abortions of pre-babies. > > Do you believe that, before a child utters a word, he has no concept of > words? Do you think that a neon sign lights up upon each stage of > development? Do you think there is any possiblity that a child may have > developed a sense of time and an understanding of future in a way that no > words could express? And if there were words, what with his immature vocal > capabilities and irregular body movements, would his inability to > express the concept seal his doom. > The original author is talking about "pre-babies" -- i.e. fetuses. You give an answer that refers to children. Your arguments fail to address his/her assertions. > > > Tracy Tims ihnp4!utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy > > You use phrases such as "From what I can tell..." and "All I know is..." > implying views from your limited perception. Easy, we all have limited > perceptions. That's why conscientious hunters don't shoot at moving bushes. > You also said ".. sometime after birth..." implying uncertainties. > > From the midst of all this misgiving, You see nothing wrong with abortion. > But if your perceptions are wrong, (we all must face that possibility), > you would be inflicting pain, an atrocity from your points previous. > > Let's be sure. Mike Johnston Do you mean that, if it could somehow be shown that fetuses feel no pain (mental or physical) during abortions, that you would sanction them? That if we developed an abortion method that involved giving the fetus an injected overdose of downers before its removal from the mother's body, you would then feel allright about them? If so, then are you just arguing that abortion technology is the only problem? Mike Gray, BTL, WH
tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (03/01/85)
Me (Tracy, original article): > From what I can tell about pre-babies, they don't see time as a "human" > would. Mike Johnston: Isn't this the basic premise upon which all types of rasiscm is found. The thought that others do not "measure up" to what is norm. You correctly quoted the word human since biologically it is one as we are. My response: No, this has nothing to do with norms. It has to do with what perceptions and feelings various things are capable of. The only thing I can think of that distinguishes me from a rock (in that I have no problem smashing a rock whereas I don't want to smash myself) is that I would object to smashing myself, and the rock wouldn't. Racism is the application of distinctions (which may also be inaccurate) that exist between groups of people to individuals themselves. That is, notions of race (which may or may not be true to fact) are applied to individuals (and there they are certainly not true to fact) to justify discrimination. The discrimination is not a product of the justification, it is instead a product of fear and hate; and the justification is used to rationalize the fear and hate. I am certainly not doing any of this. The difference between my views of babies and animals and racism is that the former is an attempt to understand existent differences and the latter is an attempt to rationalize unjust feelings and actions. Racists are rarely open minded. > All I know is that some time after birth, they develop a sense of time, and > an understanding of their future. Birth is the latest point where we can > recognize that that sense is lacking. So, I have no trouble with allowing > abortions of pre-babies. Do you believe that, before a child utters a word, he has no concept of words? Do you think that a neon sign lights up upon each stage of development?... Yes, I believe that there is a point in the development of a child where he/she has no concept of words, and no concept of death. I would place a lower bound on the age for abortion somewhere where we were sure there was no concept of death. I don't think that a baby at birth has a concept of death. You use phrases such as "From what I can tell..." and "All I know is..." implying views from your limited perception. ... conscientious hunters don't shoot at moving bushes. ...But if your perceptions are wrong, (we all must face that possibility), you would be inflicting pain, an atrocity from your points previous. First of all, inflicting pain is to be avoided, and not neccessarily at all costs. I am sure enough that even if a first trimester fetus can feel pain that it cannot object to it's death. That's why I think abortion should be completely legal. Secondly, I am certain about few things, yet I still make decisions and perform actions which depend on perceptions about which I am uncertain. I will only claim open mindedness in the future. As I said above, I don't think that a baby at birth has a concept of death. I also don't think there is a high probability that I am wrong. There are very few "facts" that I actually know, perhaps the only one is that "I am". Everything else "only apparently is". Tracy Tims ihnp4!utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy Human Computing Resources Corporation utcsri!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 dciem!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy
johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (03/04/85)
> > > > > From what I can tell about pre-babies, they don't see time as a "human" > > > would. > > > > Isn't this the basic premise upon which all types of rasiscm is found. The > > thought that others do not "measure up" to what is norm. > > No. The basic premise of racism is that certain human beings may properly be > treated differently because of their race. The original author made no > mention of race, and probably means his/her observation to apply to babies > (or "pre-babies") of all races, including his/her own. > > This is a cheap debating tactic. Take something you don't like, such as > abortion, ask if it isn't the same as something most people dislike, > such as racism, and you have perpetrated a nice, cheap ad-hominem attack > under the guise of righteousness. Follow the point this time. A premise of a philosophy is not the same as the philosophy. The premise of racism is still the idea that one group does not measure up. Racism then applies this to races as the groups involved. I think that showing the similarities between an idea and one that people dislike is very legitimate. People have always been able to rationalize their actions by convincing themselves it's something acceptable. If it's possible to wake them up to what is really taking place, at the least they're more informed. > > > They have no notions about it other than the here and now. All > > > I know is that some time after birth, they develop a sense of time, and > > > an understanding of their future. Birth is the latest point where we can > > > recognize that that sense is lacking. So, I have no trouble with allowing > > > abortions of pre-babies. > > > > Do you believe that, before a child utters a word, he has no concept of > > words? Do you think that a neon sign lights up upon each stage of > > development? Do you think there is any possiblity that a child may have > > developed a sense of time and an understanding of future in a way that no > > words could express? And if there were words, what with his immature vocal > > capabilities and irregular body movements, would his inability to > > express the concept seal his doom. > > > The original author is talking about "pre-babies" -- i.e. fetuses. You > give an answer that refers to children. Your arguments fail to address > his/her assertions. > > > > > Tracy Tims ihnp4!utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy My arguments were meant to apply to all ..... I'm guess I'm stuck. If someone could come up with a phrase to apply to members of the species ho....Looks like I'm stuck again. In times past I could have used children to apply to MY idea of any human from the point of conception onward which is the target group for my arguments which still apply since even children after birth cannot express an understanding of the future though they may have one. But the definitions these days are muddled. > > > > You use phrases such as "From what I can tell..." and "All I know is..." > > implying views from your limited perception. Easy, we all have limited > > perceptions. That's why conscientious hunters don't shoot at moving bushes. > > You also said ".. sometime after birth..." implying uncertainties. > > > > From the midst of all this misgiving, You see nothing wrong with abortion. > > But if your perceptions are wrong, (we all must face that possibility), > > you would be inflicting pain, an atrocity from your points previous. > > > > Let's be sure. Mike Johnston > > Do you mean that, if it could somehow be shown that fetuses feel no pain > (mental or physical) during abortions, that you would sanction them? That > if we developed an abortion method that involved giving the fetus an injected > overdose of downers before its removal from the mother's body, you would > then feel allright about them? If so, then are you just arguing that abortion > technology is the only problem? > > Mike Gray, BTL, WH I was replying to someone who said that the could not see inflicting pain needlessly on an individual who has awareness. I was pointing out in conclusion that unless we we're absolutely sure that a fetus does not have this awareness, then this "to be avoided" idea of inflicting pain would happen anyway. Mike Johnston