ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (01/17/85)
Gary, you are trying to suck me into an argument that I have neither the time nor the inclination to enter. I am just trying to get you to answer one simple question: why should the legal status of abortion be any different from the legal status of killing animals for food? The only thing in your last response that seems to be an attempt at answering my question is this: > No. I am saying that some things (for example, murder) should be > illegal no matter how many people think otherwise. Since popular > opinion does have an effect on what laws are passed (and even > more on what laws are enforced), it may never occur that everything > which should be legal is, and vice versa, but I think we should > try to make the laws what they should be, not necessarily what > some people may or may not want. I suppose you are leaving it for me to draw the conclusion that abortion is one of those things that "should be illegal no matter how many people think otherwise." Well, I know that a lot of people feel that way. But what argument are you going to give me to support your position that cannot also be used to support the position that killing animals should be illegal no matter how many people think otherwise? The only answer you have given to that one is that members of our species deserve legal protection and members of other species do not. In response to that, I asked what difference there was between an argument based on species and an argument based on race? So far, you haven't answered that one. Please, before you give me any other arguments based on species, substitute "race" for "species" and see how they sound. Incidentally, although I said I don't want to get into this, I will answer your question: > And do you mean that you would support a law forbidding third > trimester abortions? (Definitely not a rhetorical question). My answer to that is "maybe." Such a law would have to be based on medical evidence that a third-trimester fetus is (probably) capable of thought, and that there are no other overriding philosophical arguments. For example, one might argue that if it's inside your body, you have a right to get rid of it whether it's capable of thought or not. This is a complex issue, which is why I don't have the time to get into details. Suffice it to say that I would not consider a law prohibiting third- trimester abortions to be an atrocity, and that I would consider a law prohibiting FIRST-trimester abortions to be totally immoral.
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/19/85)
> Gary, you are trying to suck me into an argument that I have neither > the time nor the inclination to enter. I am just trying to get you > to answer one simple question: why should the legal status of abortion > be any different from the legal status of killing animals for food? I am not trying to "suck you into" anything. I gave your simple question a simple answer: That the human fetus is not an animal. You implied that there wasn't any "real" difference; when I tried to show that there was, you said I wasn't answering your original question. I tried to get you to answer the converse question, "Why should they be treated alike?" and you said that the important thing was the ability to think; I asked for criteria to determine that ability, and tried to show why it was not a practical definition for the term human. Now, you say that that is not answering your original question. You want me to answer your question only after I accept your concepts of what a fetus is, what a human is, what an animal is, and what the basis of rights is. *Of course* I would agree with you if I first accepted all of your concepts first. But I don't; but if I try to point out that fact, I am not answering your question. Sorry, I no longer believe that you really want an answer. Therefore I will stop trying. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (01/20/85)
Gary, I understand that you feel that your point of view should have the force of law because it is right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. However, there are other people who disagree with you and who feel that THEIR point of view should have the force of law because it is right and everyone who disagrees with THEM is wrong. You can't both be right, but you could both be wrong. I don't see much reason to choose your particular brand of argument over theirs, and you haven't given me any, except to restate your position. I'm still waiting for your answer.
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (01/22/85)
Gary Samuelson writes: > I gave your simple >question a simple answer: That the human fetus is not an animal. Homo Sapiens is an animal, in that it is a member of the animal kingdom. (We certainly aren't plants.) Therefore, if a human fetus is not an animal, it certainly is not a member of homo sapiens, therefore it is not human. QED. JCA
johnston@spp1.UUCP (01/24/85)
>= Andrew Koenig > Incidentally, although I said I don't want to get into this, > I will answer your question: > > > And do you mean that you would support a law forbidding third > > trimester abortions? (Definitely not a rhetorical question). > > My answer to that is "maybe." Such a law would have to be based > on medical evidence that a third-trimester fetus is (probably) > capable of thought, and that there are no other overriding philosophical > arguments. For example, one might argue that if it's inside > your body, you have a right to get rid of it whether it's > capable of thought or not. This is a complex issue, which is > why I don't have the time to get into details. Suffice it > to say that I would not consider a law prohibiting third- > trimester abortions to be an atrocity, and that I would consider > a law prohibiting FIRST-trimester abortions to be totally immoral. These thoughts seem to rank with the idea of "guilty until proven innocent". If your basis for determining the right to live is based on the capability of thought and (this may be a big assumption) you did not want to error and uselessly waste life due to unknowns, I would think you would want to start with a clean slate and allow abortions only when overwhelming and never to be disputed medical evidence proves that no thoughts occur at any particular time span. And then allow abortions to be done later as like evidence appears for the next segment. The trouble with working backwards is illustrated by your views of first and third trimester abortion prohibitions. You might allow third trimester abortions based on evidence of thought that doesn't exist but conceivably may at some time. Your opinion of first trimester abortions was stated fairly strongly allowing little room for change (change would be "totally immoral"). But what is pointedly missing is the criteria for change that you would allow in the first case, capability of thought. Where would your position be (morally, since you introduced the term), if this evidence came in showing thought during the third trimester but something additional, thought at 11 weeks? Oops! Question: Does life exist at a certain age before technology conforms it? Mike Johnston