ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (10/13/84)
The view that abortion is murder follows logically from the assumption that a fetus is a human being (an assumption I do not happen to hold). Once you make that assumption, it seems that you are forced to the conclusion that abortion should not be permitted under any circumstances, with a possible exception for the case where both mother and baby will surely die if the pregnancy is continued to term. Since I believe that the essence of humanity is rational consciousness, and everything we know about consciousness indicates that it is a function of the brain, I am forced to conclude that until it develops a brain capable of sustaining consciousness, a fetus is not a human being, and a pregnancy may be terminated before that point. (when that point might be is an interesting medical question, but is not relevant to the question I am about to ask) I am convinced that my view also follows consistantly from my assumptions, and am aware (of course) that others do not share these assumptions. There seem to be a significant number of people who hold a third view. I have never seen the reasoning behind this view articulated clearly, but its conclusion is that abortion should be prohibited except in cases of rape or incest. Now, I have trouble finding a set of assumptions from which this conclusion can be drawn. It seems to me that if a fetus is a human being, than abortion is murder and is not to be tolerated under any circumstances. If it is not human, than there is no justification for restricting abortion on demand. Can someone who holds this third view enlighten me (by mail please) on its philosophical basis?
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (12/23/84)
Some people believe abortion is murder. Others do not. Some of those that do so think that abortion should be illegal, for the same reasons that murder is illegal, even though they know many people disagree with them. Some people believe killing animals for food is murder. Others do not. Some of those that do so think that killing animals for food should be illegal, for the same reasons that murder is illegal, even though they know many people disagree with them. Can someone please explain to me why abortion should have a different legal status than killing animals?
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/04/85)
> Some people believe abortion is murder. Others do not. > Some of those that do so think that abortion should > be illegal, for the same reasons that murder is illegal, > even though they know many people disagree with them. > > Some people believe killing animals for food is murder. > Others do not. Some of those that do so think that > killing animals for food should be illegal, for the same > reasons that murder is illegal, even though they know > many people disagree with them. > > 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 problem with analogies such as the above is that they can work both ways. E.g., start out a paragraph with the above paradigm, "Some people believe killing convicted felons is murder..." So why should capital punishment have a different legal status than abortion? Answer: Because they are different actions. Which brings up another problem with analogies. Some people would say, yes, killing fetuses and killing animals and killing felons should all have the same legal status; they should all be illegal. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (01/04/85)
> = Gary Samuelson >> = me >> Some people believe abortion is murder. Others do not. >> Some of those that do so think that abortion should >> be illegal, for the same reasons that murder is illegal, >> even though they know many people disagree with them. >> >> Some people believe killing animals for food is murder. >> Others do not. Some of those that do so think that >> killing animals for food should be illegal, for the same >> reasons that murder is illegal, even though they know >> many people disagree with them. >> >> 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 problem with analogies such as the above is that they >can work both ways. E.g., start out a paragraph with the >above paradigm, "Some people believe killing convicted felons >is murder..." So why should capital punishment have a >different legal status than abortion? Answer: Because they >are different actions. > >Which brings up another problem with analogies. Some people >would say, yes, killing fetuses and killing animals and killing >felons should all have the same legal status; they should all >be illegal. Simple questions are often the hardest to answer, as you have just demonstrated, which is why they are interesting to ask. The trouble with the first paragraph of your 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. Your justification for treating abortion and capital punishment differently doesn't mean much unless you tell me just what different legal status should be applied to capital punishment and abortion, and why. In fact, I find your third paragraph the most convincing of all, except for the last five words. In other words, I see no reason for any different legal treatment of killing animals, criminals, or fetuses. But since there is far from universal agreement on any of these issues, I conclude they should all be legal. Since I know several people who think abortion should be illegal yet eat meat, I was wondering how they justified it. I am still wondering.
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/07/85)
> > = Gary Samuelson > >>, > = Andrew Koenig > >> 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? > Your justification for treating abortion and capital punishment > differently doesn't mean much unless you tell me just what > different legal status should be applied to capital punishment > and abortion, and why. Abortion is the premature termination of a pregnancy, either resulting in, or caused by, the death of that fetus. Spontaneous abortion is abortion caused by no deliberate act. Therapeutic abortion, which is what we are discussing here, is either the killing of a fetus, which results the fetus being expelled, or the forcible removal of the fetus, which results in the death of the fetus. Capital punishment is the slaying of a person convicted of a sufficiently heinous crime that the criminal has been judged to have forfeited the right to life. Unless you can explain what crime the fetus has committed, I fail to see any similarity between the two. > >Which brings up another problem with analogies. Some people > >would say, yes, killing fetuses and killing animals and killing > >felons should all have the same legal status; they should all > >be illegal. > > In fact, I find [the above] paragraph the most convincing of all, > except for the last five words. In other words, I see no reason > for any different legal treatment of killing animals, criminals, > or fetuses. But since there is far from universal agreement > on any of these issues, I conclude they should all be legal. (Obviously the above paragraph wasn't convincing at all, since its purpose was to convince you that analogies could not really prove anything.) 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. > Since I know several people who think abortion should be illegal > yet eat meat, I was wondering how they justified it. I am still > wondering. I can respect someone who disagrees with my position. I find it difficult to respect someone who seems to pretend not to understand it. But maybe I did not make it as clear as I hoped. I shall try again. 1. A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens. If this is in dispute, examine the genetic makeup. 2. Examining the genetic makeup will also show that an individual fetus has some genes in common with the mother, and some in common with the father. It is therefore neither the mother nor the father, but a separate individual. 3. All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right to live. Other rights are subordinate to this one. 4. Since the fetus is a human individual, it has the right to live, and, unless it is endangering the mother's life, its right to live supercedes the mother's rights. (And since someone will no doubt accuse me of inconsistency -- without knowing me, of course -- let me add that if I thought that someone would die without my help, I would feel obligated to supply such help. Examples of cases where I have put this principle into practice are none of your business, but if you insist, I will supply them.) The following statements are not related to abortion, but I have to throw them in to show that they are not: 5. Normal human beings value human life (specifically, their own) more than nonhuman life. If this is not justifiable, then it becomes improper for humans to kill any other living thing, plant or animal, to sustain their own lives. 6. It is possible for humans to act is such a way that they forfeit their right to life. (Taking someone else's life, or attempting to do so, are, in my opinion, examples of such action.) Now, even if you do not agree with my position, I think you ought to be able to understand it. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) (01/08/85)
In article <3229@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >>The fetus is not an animal. > >The trouble with... your 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. The problem with your reply is that 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. > ...legal treatment of killing animals, criminals, >or fetuses. But since there is far from universal agreement >on any of these issues, I conclude they should all be legal. There is a legal difference between manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder. Even though a jury may not be able to decide which a defendant should be charged with, clearly, the murder/death was illegal. The judicial system is based on idea that each case is resolved on its own merits. You can't generalize. >Since I know several people who think abortion should be illegal >yet eat meat, I was wondering how they justified it. I am still >wondering. Wondering about what? 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. Alana Hommel (for Carl Hommel) Wife: Oh wow! My first posting to net.abortion! Husband: Just don't cross-post to net.general.