ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (01/12/85)
I asked what I thought was a simple question, but all I have
gotten so far is answers to other questions. Maybe people
aren't reading my question carefully. I will ask it again.
There are many things that some people do as a matter of
everyday routine that others think are horrible. Examples
range from publishing erotic material to accepting blood
transfusions to eating meat. For each of these activities,
there is some collection of people who believe that this
activity should be prohibited by law. In other words,
all people should be prevented by force from engaging in this
activity, regardless of whether they believe it right or wrong.
I am trying to distinguish between two separate issues: the
moral status of abortion ("Is abortion right or wrong?")
and the moral status of legal prohibition against abortion
("Should people be forcibly prevented from having abortions,
even if they think it is right?"). It seems to me that these
issues have not been separated in most of the discussions
I have seen so far on this newsgroup.
In thinking about the difference between these two issues,
I have been struck by the similarity between abortion and
carnivorism. In both cases, there are some people who feel
that the action in question is morally equivalent to murder,
because it involves the desctruction of an organism that
is conscious and can feel pain. In fact, some would go as
far to say that a year-old cat, for instance, is at least
as aware of its surroundings as a new-born baby.
If virtually everyone felt that killing an animal was murder,
I have no doubt that our legal system would reflect this
nearly universal feeling. But a substantial number of people
feel that killing an animal is not murder.
Similarly, if virtually everyone felt that terminating a
pregnancy was murder, I have no doubt that our legal system
would reflect this nearly universal feeling. But a substantial
number of people feel that abortion is not murder.
So here is my question again: given that substantial numbers
of people do not believe that abortion is murder, what
argument can you give me that abortion should be illegal
that I cannot also use as an argument that killing animals
should be illegal?
---------------------
I will now examine two non-answers I have seen recently.
First, Gary Samuelson. His remarks are preceded by odd
numbers of '>' characters; mine by even numbers:
>>>> Can someone please explain to me why abortion should
>>>> have a different legal status than killing animals?
>>>Certainly. The fetus is not an animal. (If you really think
>>>that it is a simple question, that is the simple answer you
>>>deserve.)
>>The trouble with the [above] answer is that it is
>>merely your own opinion. Just as some people believe there is no
>>real difference between humans before and after birth, others
>>believe there is no real difference between humans and other animals.
>What do you mean by "real difference"? In what way are the obvious
>physical differences and (perhaps less obvious) mental differences
>between humans and, for example, a snake, unreal?
The obvious physical differences between humans and other animals
are about as real as the obvious physical differences between humans
at birth and humans, say, three months after conception.
And yes, I did think it was a simple question until I saw the
attempts of people to answer it. I'll make you a deal: if you
stop sniping, I won't start.
>I surmise, then, that you don't think anything should be illegal
>unless there is universal agreement that it should be illegal;
>is this correct? Or do you mean that the consensus need only
>be close to universal?
>If you really require universal agreement, then I submit that
>there should be no laws at all; there is no need for a law
>proscribing behavior that no one finds acceptable.
>If you mean that laws should be based on a suitably large majority,
>then it becomes theoretically moral and a practical possibility
>simply to vote the annihilation of a sufficiently detested minority.
In fact, I do not believe that the mere fact that nearly everyone
feels a certain way gives them the right to enact their feelings
into law, for exactly the reason you describe (among others).
But we are talking about something even worse here: the
prohibition of an action that many people feel should be legal.
Gary then goes into a position statement that is too long to quote,
but says essentially that a fetus has the right to live because
it is alive and human and that animals are not. He defines a
human as follows:
1. A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens. If this is in
dispute, examine the genetic makeup.
No, this is not in dispute. But don't you think it's rather racist
of you to say that only members of one particular species have rights?
After all, there was a time when it was believed that slaves were not
people. After all, they have black skin, which makes them of a
different species, doesn't it? What makes you so sure we aren't
presently committing an atrocity far worse than slavery when we
raise animals only so that we can kill them and eat them?
Please do not misunderstand me. I am NOT arguing for enforced
vegetarianism. What I am doing is arguing that if you claim that
abortion should be prohibited as a matter of law, then as far as I
can see I can frame a similar argument that killing animals should
also be prohibited as a matter of law. I do not see any difference
between the two arguments, and it is exactly this difference that
I am trying to find someone to point out.
The second non-answer to my question comes from Alana Hommel:
> ... it is not a matter of opinion whether
>the fetus is human/alive. A 10 week old's heart beats, its brain waves,
>and it does its deep knee bends each morning. Science says this, with
>its fetalscopes, EEGs, and mother's tummys.
A cow's heart beats, and its brain waves too, yet it is legal to
kill cows. You are arguing that there is a difference TO YOU,
but I am not trying to dispute that.
> ... Is there a question in there someplace?
>I am not carrying a kitten, cow, or pig. I am carrying a human being.
>It is not customary to eat human beings. Eating animal flesh does
>not need to be justified.
You mean that eating animal flesh does not need to be justified TO YOU.
But to some people, it has the same moral status as cannibalism.
Yet I don't hear anyone saying that eating animal flesh should be
outlawed because some people think it is terrible.
Why, then, are so many people saying that abortion should be outlawed
because they don't like it? Could it be that they can't see that
other people don't all think the same way they do?
---------------------------------------------
This discussion has gone on long enough. I am not interested in getting
into a debate with each of you out there as to where abortion fits
into your own moral scheme. I have learned that it is a waste of
time to try to debate religious issues: people have usually decided
before entering such a debate that they will not allow their opinions
to change no matter what arguments are advanced.
I simply want to know how people who think that their particular views
about abortion should be written into law can avoid concluding that
the analagous views about carnivorism should not also become law.garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/15/85)
> I asked what I thought was a simple question, but all I have > gotten so far is answers to other questions. Maybe people > aren't reading my question carefully. I will ask it again. > > I have been struck by the similarity between abortion and > carnivorism. In both cases, there are some people who feel > that the action in question is morally equivalent to murder, > because it involves the desctruction of an organism that > is conscious and can feel pain. In fact, some would go as > far to say that a year-old cat, for instance, is at least > as aware of its surroundings as a new-born baby. You are misquoting most of the people who are against abortion. Most people are against abortion because it is the destruction of the life of a human being, not because it is the destruction of the life of a conscious, pain detecting organism. I, as a human being, value the lives of other human beings more than the lives of non-human living things. (This is not to say that I do not value other living things at all, just that I value human life more than non-human life.) Don't you? If not, there is no point in proceeding. > So here is my question again: given that substantial numbers > of people do not believe that abortion is murder, what > argument can you give me that abortion should be illegal > that I cannot also use as an argument that killing animals > should be illegal? First, what does what substantial numbers of people believe or disbelieve have to with what ought to be legal? Aren't there things which should be illegal because they are wrong, regardless of their popularity? So here is my argument, which you have already dismissed as a non-answer: 1. To kill a human being, who has not harmed or threatened to harm another human being, is immoral and should be illegal. Various legal terms exist to describe such killings: manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary), murder of various degrees, negligent homicide, perhaps others. I am not saying that every harm or threat justifies lethal force in response, but I am saying that nothing but harm or threat justifies a lethal response. 2. The fact that such killing is immoral and ought to be illegal is based on the humanity of the victim, not on the consciousness or ability to detect pain. This is why you can't use this argument to show that killing animals should be illegal. 3. Abortion is the killing of a human being who (generally) has not harmed or threatened to harm another human being. I am explicitly leaving out the case where the pregnancy is endangering the mother's life; it is not generally the case. To refute the above argument, you need to show either that something other than harm or threat to harm justifies the killing of a human being, or that pregnancy in general causes sufficient harm or threat of harm to justify killing of a human being, or that the fetus is not a human being. To use the above argument to outlaw the killing of animals, you need to show that the animal(s) you have in mind are really human beings, since the above argument explicitly and exclusively is about human beings. (I don't approve of wanton destruction of other life forms, either; but that is not the subject of the above argument.) > Gary then goes into a position statement that is too long to quote, > but says essentially that a fetus has the right to live because > it is alive and human and that animals are not. He defines a > human as follows: > > 1. A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens. If this is in > dispute, examine the genetic makeup. > > No, this is not in dispute. But don't you think it's rather racist > of you to say that only members of one particular species have rights? I didn't say that. I said that the members of the species homo sapiens have certain rights simply by virtue of the fact that they are members of that species. I said nothing about the existence of rights for other species, one way or the other. > After all, there was a time when it was believed that slaves were not > people. After all, they have black skin, which makes them of a > different species, doesn't it? No. By the way, do you know what color my skin is? Who's being racist? > What makes you so sure we aren't > presently committing an atrocity far worse than slavery when we > raise animals only so that we can kill them and eat them? I repeat: what makes animals so special? If raising animals for food might be wrong, raising plants for food might be wrong, also. If you can take an argument against killing humans and apply it to killing animals, then I will in turn apply it to killing plants, at which point the only moral thing to do is starve to death. But to answer your question more directly, I have already stated my preference for human life over non-human life. I think it can be taken as a given that each species prefers its own kind of life to other kinds, and I see nothing wrong with that. > Please do not misunderstand me. I am NOT arguing for enforced > vegetarianism. What I am doing is arguing that if you claim that > abortion should be prohibited as a matter of law, then as far as I > can see I can frame a similar argument that killing animals should > also be prohibited as a matter of law. I do not see any difference > between the two arguments, and it is exactly this difference that > I am trying to find someone to point out. Assuming you think that it should be illegal to kill a human being that has neither harmed nor threatened to harm another human being, what reasons do you have for thinking that? Why don't those reasons apply to the killing of animals (you admitted that you are not for enforced vegetarianism)? If you can figure out why the killing of an adult human being differs from killing an animal (or a plant) for food, then you ought to be able to figure out why the killing of a substantially younger human being differs from killing an animal or plant for food. > Why, then, are so many people saying that abortion should be outlawed > because they don't like it? Another misquote. Abortion should not be outlawed because some people don't like it; it should be outlawed because it is the destruction of an innocent human being. > This discussion has gone on long enough. I am not interested in getting > into a debate with each of you out there as to where abortion fits > into your own moral scheme. I have learned that it is a waste of > time to try to debate religious issues: Religious issues?? I don't think I used a single religious argument. In fact, I know of at least two firmly agnostic people on the net who are against abortion. > people have usually decided > before entering such a debate that they will not allow their opinions > to change no matter what arguments are advanced. Speak for yourself. Several of my opinions have been changed as a result of netnews articles. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/15/85)
In article <662@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > kjm writes: >> I have been struck by the similarity between abortion and >> carnivorism. In both cases, there are some people who feel >> that the action in question is morally equivalent to murder, >> because it involves the desctruction of an organism that >> is conscious and can feel pain. In fact, some would go as >> far to say that a year-old cat, for instance, is at least >> as aware of its surroundings as a new-born baby. > >> So here is my question again: given that substantial numbers >> of people do not believe that abortion is murder, what >> argument can you give me that abortion should be illegal >> that I cannot also use as an argument that killing animals >> should be illegal? > >So here is my argument, which you have already dismissed as a >non-answer: > >1. To kill a human being, who has not harmed or threatened to > harm another human being, is immoral and should be illegal. > Various legal terms exist to describe such killings: manslaughter > (voluntary and involuntary), murder of various degrees, > negligent homicide, perhaps others. I am not saying that > every harm or threat justifies lethal force in response, > but I am saying that nothing but harm or threat justifies > a lethal response. >2. The fact that such killing is immoral and ought to be illegal > is based on the humanity of the victim, not on the consciousness > or ability to detect pain. This is why you can't use this > argument to show that killing animals should be illegal. >3. Abortion is the killing of a human being who (generally) has > not harmed or threatened to harm another human being. I am > explicitly leaving out the case where the pregnancy is endangering > the mother's life; it is not generally the case. > >To refute the above argument, you need to show either that something >other than harm or threat to harm justifies the killing of a human >being, or that pregnancy in general causes sufficient harm or >threat of harm to justify killing of a human being, or that the >fetus is not a human being. > What this comes down to is what is meant by "human-being". You believe that humanity is acquired at the moment of conception. I believe that there is a gradual, step-by-step developement from an unfertilized ovum to an adult human being, at about 18 yrs past birth, and that there are no transitions that are sufficiently more significant than others to *require* a recognition of a change of status. Thus *any* splitting points must be *arbitrary*. Thus we are back to the original question, why should *your* dividing line be prefered to anyone elses. After all almost any argument which can be advanced for the "humanity" of a fertilized embryo can be applied equally well to an unfertilized ovum, which would make failure to become pregnant equivalent to murder! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
johnston@spp1.UUCP (01/17/85)
> What this comes down to is what is meant by "human-being". > You believe that humanity is acquired at the moment of conception. > I believe that there is a gradual, step-by-step developement from > an unfertilized ovum to an adult human being, at about 18 yrs > past birth, and that there are no transitions that are sufficiently > more significant than others to *require* a recognition of a > change of status. Thus *any* splitting points must be *arbitrary*. > Thus we are back to the original question, why should *your* > dividing line be prefered to anyone elses. After all almost any > argument which can be advanced for the "humanity" of a fertilized > embryo can be applied equally well to an unfertilized ovum, > which would make failure to become pregnant equivalent to murder! > -- > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > > {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen A "human-being", according to one definition, is a member of the species, homo sapiens, identified by a unique number of chromosomal pairs in its genetic makeup. I would say that an organism acquires humanity when it possesses this genetic makeup. An unfertilized ovum, as well as a sperm cell, is a zygote possessing only half of each pair and, if left to itself, will transition nowhere. Once fertilization takes place, no genetic material is added or removed. Since you don't see a tranition at this point and if you believe that any of us are humans, then I must assume that you consider the germ cell itself to be human. If this is true then fertilization must be a very interesting occurrence where two humans join together to form one. But then why attribute the bestowal of humanity to the production of the ovum or sperm. This involves a lessening of genetic material where a human cell possessing a set of chromosomal pairs splits each pair to form the zygote. Surely the original human cell must be a human. But every human cell derives itself from cell division tracing back to the original fertilized ovum which, by your logic, is not enough to bestow humanity, and so forth ans so on. So when did each member of our species start? Actually, I agree that attempts to establish an arbitrary transition point makes no sense and when one's humanity is involved is kind of scary. I believe the transition point should be established as early as possible to cover times when there is any question. I'd definitely feel this way if the criteria was being applied to me. Now if you want to place that point before conception then, for one thing, abortion would be destroying humanity, but the pragmatics of attempting to prohibit nocturnal emmissions and the menstrual flow would be astounding. Conception provides a much more manageable point to attempt to protect what would be humanity since it is after the transition point. For any transition point after that, if humanity is to be protected, definite proof needs to be stated showing why humanity wasn't and now it is. The real arbitrary dividing lines are ones that show no addition of anything needed to define a human being genetically. Mike Johnston
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/19/85)
Gary Samuelson, quoting himself: > >To refute the above argument [in favor of making abortion illegal], > >you need to show either that something > >other than harm or threat to harm justifies the killing of a human > >being, or that pregnancy in general causes sufficient harm or > >threat of harm to justify killing of a human being, or that the > >fetus is not a human being. To which Stanley Friesen replies: > What this comes down to is what is meant by "human-being". To which I say: exactly. You don't accept my definition of humanity; fine. Please suggest another one, at least as objectively measurable. An example of a definition which is not measurable is the definition of a human being as creature with the ability to think. > You believe that humanity is acquired at the moment of conception. > I believe that there is a gradual, step-by-step developement from > an unfertilized ovum to an adult human being, at about 18 yrs > past birth, and that there are no transitions that are sufficiently > more significant than others to *require* a recognition of a > change of status. Thus *any* splitting points must be *arbitrary*. > Thus we are back to the original question, why should *your* > dividing line be prefered to anyone elses. Because the dividing line I use (it's not *mine*, I didn't invent it) is measurable, and ensures that we don't deny the right of life to any human being, even if we aren't sure when an embryo becomes a human being. Do you have a dividing line for which you can make the same statement? > After all, almost any > argument which can be advanced for the "humanity" of a fertilized > embryo can be applied equally well to an unfertilized ovum, > which would make failure to become pregnant equivalent to murder! An ovum has but half of the chromosomes necessary to make a human being. And why do you pick the ovum? Don't the sperm fit into the development? But if you mentioned the sperm, then you would have to admit that it takes both an ovum and a sperm to make one human being. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/19/85)
Then we should be able to kill 6 year olds(by your definition) if we decide that they are not "human" by our standard. Since one does not become fully human until 18(or so I read your note to say) why don't we give the parents the right to kill their children through age 17? Also, an unfertalized ovum is not the same as one that has been fertalized, without the sperm, it will never produce life, however, the fertalized egg will produce a life if allowed to grow to full potential, the same way that a 6 year old will. Brad
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/19/85)
[] >In article <662@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >> kjm writes: >>> I have been struck by the similarity between abortion and >>> carnivorism. In both cases, there are some people who feel >>> that the action in question is morally equivalent to murder, >>> because it involves the desctruction of an organism that >>> is conscious and can feel pain. In fact, some would go as >>> far to say that a year-old cat, for instance, is at least >>> as aware of its surroundings as a new-born baby. >> >>> So here is my question again: given that substantial numbers >>> of people do not believe that abortion is murder, what >>> argument can you give me that abortion should be illegal >>> that I cannot also use as an argument that killing animals >>> should be illegal? Actually, Andrew Koenig wrote the above, not me. (Kudos where it is due...) > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/21/85)
From: masscomp!philabs!bunker!garys@CMU-CS-PT.ARPA (Gary M. Samuelson) >> [Someone on when humanity starts] >> ... there are no transitions that are sufficiently >> more significant than others to *require* a recognition of a >> change of status. Thus *any* splitting points must be *arbitrary*. >> Thus we are back to the original question, why should *your* >> dividing line be prefered to anyone elses. > >Because the dividing line I use (it's not *mine*, I didn't invent >it) is measurable, and ensures that we don't deny the right of >life to any human being, even if we aren't sure when an embryo >becomes a human being. Do you have a dividing line for which >you can make the same statement? If all we're looking for is a measurable dividing line, what is wrong with time of birth? It's certainly a lot more obvious than time of conception. [I can see it now: the anti-choice folks get conception declared as start of life, then prosecute women for reckless endangerment for (say) drinking and risking a two-day-old fetus' existence.] It's quite measurable, and makes sense in that it is the moment when the fetus ceases to be physically dependent on its host for its own existence. I.e., at that point it ceases to be a parasite and becomes a proper individual. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/21/85)
>First, what does what substantial numbers of people believe or >disbelieve have to with what ought to be legal? Aren't there >things which should be illegal because they are wrong, regardless >of their popularity? That may depend on your definition of 'wrong'. In our democratic society, I don't necessarily believe that any act is inherently 'wrong'. 'Wrong' is in the eye of the beholder. Murder for example, is not considered 'wrong' by many people when performed under certain circumstances, war and capital punishment for example. Some people also feel that murder is not 'wrong' when enacted against certain tresspassers. And, certain people do not feel that murder is 'wrong' (or may not even be murder) when enacted against certain unborn human foetus'. Our legal system effectively defines 'wrong' as 'illegal', and 'illegal' is dependent on laws that are voted in by 'majorities'. This would indicate that any existing 'law' reflects the majority view. Majority views are subject to change, and it is the task of groups wishing such changes to occur, to prove that their views are in the majority through voting. I don't believe that the pro-lifers have accomplished this recently, (I suppose they are trying) and until they do, legally, abortion is not 'wrong'. Morally, abortion is only 'wrong' to those that think it 'wrong'. If we all felt it was 'wrong', I doubt very much it would be legal. Keith Doyle {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (01/22/85)
Mike Johnston writes: >A "human-being", according to one definition, is a member of the species, >homo sapiens, identified by a unique number of chromosomal pairs in its >genetic makeup. I would say that an organism acquires humanity when it >possesses this genetic makeup. Actually, this definition could get one into alot of trouble. A mongoloid child does not have the same number of chromosomes as a normal child, and there are many similar genetic defects. Are they human? If so, do the people opposing abortion on demand require that a mother carry that life form full term, even though it would be a burden on all concerned? If not, do those people supporting abortion on demand deny them civil rights? JCA
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/27/85)
That assumes that there are no absolutes. And if there are not than anything that is currently permitted by society is not wrong, by those same standards. Would you then say that slavery was only wrong for those who were opposed to it? How would you like this statement: "I am personally against slavery, and I will not own any slave, but I would nt dream of denying others the right to own slaves, if that is what they wish to do."? Also, in regard to a previous response, what about those babies who are born alive during an attempted abortion? Are then now "human", to be saved at all costs, or are they still a "parsisite"(as you imply), to be killed off? Brad
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (02/16/85)
[] Brad Andrews writes: >Also, in regard to a previous response, what about those babies who are born >alive during an attempted abortion? Are then now "human", to be saved at all >costs, or are they still a "parsisite"(as you imply), to be killed off? > > Brad Why are humans "to be saved *at all costs*"? [emphasis mine...] Who will bear these costs? Are you meaning to imply that people who wish to refuse treatment should have it forced on them? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]