lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) (02/11/85)
The following is my response to the responses my 'Clearing up my abortion argument' note created. I didn't quote authors, but I hope I answered all the major points. Hope it's not long winded. What follows is most of my original posting with comments preceded with '#': a) A human is any being that has the capacity to think. (Aristotle defined man as a rational animal.) # This not an argument from authority. I am only giving credit where # credit is due; and contrasting my definition with Aristotles. # My definition of human is a superset of Aristotle's definition. # If there is a rational fruit, then my definition would include it as # human. b) A homo-sapien is a being with a particular kind of gene set. # Beings that have the capacity to think, but have a gene set that # was different (or none at all) than homo-sapiens would be humans, # but not homo-sapiens. c) Rights are guarantees that force will not be used against a being. # See paragraph below on rights. d) Abortion is the forced termination of a pregnancy. # Oops, I want to change this to the following, (thank you Paul Dubuc): d) Abortion is the forced termination of a pregnancy and the killing of the fetus. # Proabortionists must prove two points. First that it is legitimate # to terminate a pregnancy, and secondly it is legitimate to kill the # fetus. I have no problems with the first point, and I think even some # pro-lifers would agree (perhaps pro-lifers should try to develop # technology that would remove a fetus from the mother without # killing it). Removing the fetus does not necessarilly imply its # death. If the mother wishes to find someone else willing to carry the # fetus, why not. If technology allows the completion of the term outside # the mother, why not. # # The second point is the tricky one. Some pro-abortionist # think that at any point in the pregnancy it is ok to abort (kill) the # fetus. Would this even include one minute before the mother was to # give birth ? How bizarre. How is a child in a mother one minute # before birth any different from a child one minute after birth, (besides # the obvious fact that it is outside) ? The child/fetus has rights or not # because of what it is, not where it lives. e) Only humans have rights. f) Humans have rights because they have the capacity to think. g) One right humans have is, the right to life. # Ethics is that science which tells us how to act towards other humans. # Unless you take a position of ethical nihilism, you accept that # actions (or inactions) to other humans may be classified as ethically # right, or ethically wrong, or ethically neutral (with no other # alternatives). # # When I say that a human has a right to life, I am saying that # it is ethically wrong to take that humans life. If I say a human does # not have a right to life, I am saying, it is not ethically wrong to # take that humans life, (rights in the sense I am using are transferable). # And similarly for other rights. # # If someone steals from me, he has lost some rights, and will regain # them when my property is recovered and/or I choose to have him punished. # The general ethical principle I am applying is that it is ethically wrong # initiate force against a human being. # I don't give a damn about the law, except to the extent that it corresponds # to what is ethically right, or when it *forces* me to act in certain # ways. As for 'we the people grant rights'; 'you the people' may choose # to *recognize* my rights or not, but I've got them regardless. # # I do not know an argument against ethical nihilism. This is a very # bothersome problem to me, but right now all I can say is that all the # alternatives seem absurd. 1) Homo-sapiens that have the capacity to think can create a homo-sapien without the capacity to think. i.e. humans can create a non-humans. # While not central to this discussion as I pointed out, it serves to # reenforce the idea that it may be acceptable to kill homo-sapiens. 2) Homo-sapiens without the capacity to think are not human -# homo-sapiens without the capacity to think don't have rights. # In the event that a human loses its capacity to think, it loses its # rights, but this does not imply we *must* kill them, only that it # is not wrong if we do, (hope I never go into a coma). 3) The capacity to think is shown by the presence of alpha/beta brain waves in homo-sapiens. Homo-sapien fetuses gain such waves at approximately the 28th week after conception -# fetuses gain the capacity to think at approximately the 28th week after conception -# fetuses are humans after approximately the 28th week after conception. # I do not state that 'fetuses may be aborted at the 28th week' for # a reason, it is false. I would require that a test be performed on # the fetus(es) to determine whether or not it(they) is(are) human. 4) Fetuses are human after they have the capacity to think. Fetuses are not human until they have the capacity to think. 5) Fetuses may be aborted if they are not human. Fetuses may not be aborted if they are human. Larry Cipriani cbscc!lvc