brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (12/08/84)
U From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
U } > [Liz Allen]
U } > 2. The child is animated -- he doesn't just sleep unaware of
U } > anything but seems quite active.
U } So what?
U So he is a lot more similar to you and I than we have been led to believe.
A "lot"? Lizards, snails, stray dogs and just about all other animals
are animated and active. I don't think the ability to squirm is
a valid basis for determining who is a sentient creature.
"It is like us" is one (selfish) way of determining what to save,
but in which way, and how much alike must be considered.
The characteristics to consider must reflect what we really want:
Do we desire mobility? Then we would consider all animals
(and slime mold) to be sacred, and we would all be vegetarians.
Do we desire to accumulate as much homo-sapiens DNA as possible?
If so, we would be catching every egg and sperm in a cup and
saving them.
Do we desire to collect as many complete sets of homo-sapiens
DNA as possible?
If so, we wouldn't be concerned about having too many
sets of DNA (the bodies which carry and reproduce them, rather)
filling up the world, and we wouldn't use birth control.
Do we value personalities/sentiences?
We value the freedoms to think, to communicate, to control
ones own body, and to act in any way whatsoever, as long
as it doesn't restrict these freedoms for others.
If we only valued the body but not the person in it,
our laws would protect health and life but not other things.
In short, we are concerned not with the body as much as
the person in the body (we have to deal with the physical
world in which the personality is implemented, of course).
Just because a blob of protoplasm has a particular pattern
of certain molecules, and it performs some of the basic functions
that almost all animal life performs doesn't make it special.
We don't really want to >increase< the number of persons,
but, rather, we value those we have.
The body which comes along with the person is not so valuable.
It is not good to have too many, either overall
or in one place (or the wrong place). Bodies have disadvantages,
and are also not valued nearly as much as persons.
An abortion happens when a body with nobody in it happens at the
wrong time and place for those who would have to care for
the body, and for the person who would come into being within
the body.
The concept of an exact >moment< when the person comes into
being inside of the body is not really appropriate, since
it is hard to try things such as measuring IQs of .001, for example.
Also, the implications of any little contraction of a fetus' muscle
seems to be a matter of hot debate.
U } > 3. The child is aware of the attack -- he moves away from the
U } > instrument and as far away as possible.
U } > 4. The child reacts to pain and seems aware of his death -- the
U } > silent scream...
U }
U } Cats also react to pain. However, the evidence given in no way shows
U } that the child "seems aware of his death". How can you tell what is
U } going on in the child's brain, such of it as there is at 10 weeks?
U
U There certainly is as much evidence that this 10 week old fetus is as
U aware of its death as my 10 month old daugher would be. Killing one
U is abortion, the other, murder. What's the difference?
What evidence? I haven't heard about any studies on what 10 week
old fetuses are aware of. And none equating the level of awareness
of them with children, who have been out there experiencing the
"real world".
"Aware of its death" is an awful lot more abstract than "responds
to stimuli (painful)". Neither the baby nor the fetus are aware
of >death<, in my opinion. (that takes a few years)
The difference between abortion and murder lies in the difference of
these two acts of making homo-sapiens creatures not be alive anymore.
The difference is in the objects of the two actions.
By definition. That's all.
Abortion affects a homo-sapiens which is at a much earlier stage
of development (whose body is incomplete, and whose personality
is miniscule, if even detectable) than one affected by murder.
U It would be at least a step in the right direction if the fetus had
U at least as much protection as the neighborhood cat.
You are assuming that there is a "the right direction"
that we should step in. But that is what this whole newsgroup
is trying to determine. Besides, a born cat (once it has its
eyes open, etc) has a whole lot more personality than an
unborn homo-sapiens.
U } > I didn't post this to be gross or emotional -- even though this
U } > narrative is both these things. I posted it because if there was
U } > a window to the womb, abortion would be as unthinkable as murder.
U } Why would abortion necessarily be unthinkable? I don't see any
U } causal link here.
U Then why is the killing of humans outside the womb "unthinkable"?
Maybe for some reason other than grossness or emotionalness.
Try and think of some of the reasons.
That is what we should be doing in this group -- figuring out
WHY we think murder should be "unthinkable", if we are using
it in a discussion about abortion. It doesn't really do any
good as far as the discussion is concerned to make an assumption
on something like murder, and try and apply it to abortion without
seeing how the assumption may or may not be applicable.
U } > I think it says a lot (negative) about our society that at a time
U } > in which we know so much more about fetal development than ever
U } > before, we still don't consider abortion unequivocally wrong...
Knowing about something does not make it have to be wrong.
Knowing about development doesn't make abortion wrong.
You (Liz) are assuming that society ("we") feels or ought to
feel the same way about things. This is not so. Society is
made of >other< people. OTHER. They are entitled to different
viewpoints. Don't get negative about others who think differently.
They might have considered some things that you haven't. They
might have different values. Calling people wrong, bad, evil,
or whatever makes things worse. Trying to find out root values
is the only way to go.
U } [Brian Peterson]
U } Liz Allen quotes a soundtrack from a video of an abortion.
U } The abortion is icky-poo. Whether it is icky-poo or not
U } is not the key issue, and has no relevance to whether
U } abortion should be allowed or not. It is allowable to
U } vomit, kill prey, and to go potty. All icky.
U } Yet, nobody tries to ban them.
U
U Do you think "icky-poo" is the the reason people are against abortion?
U Should we assume that people are only against killing born humans
U because it's "icky-poo" and argue that we should be legally able
U to kill them too?
NO, no, no. You are putting words in my mouth. I said no such things.
I am not saying that people are against it because,
or only because, it is icky.
I am saying that they should NOT be against it for such reasons.
I said nothing at all whatsoever about any other reasons for or
against abortion, or even about abortion itself.
I only said that the ickiness is >irrelevant<. (hrrmmph!)
U } Liz Allen numbers 4 characteristics of that
U } 10 week old fetus. A random lizard has them, too.
U } The difference between killing a 10 week old embryo
U } and the random lizard is that one of them is of
U } the same species as us. It is hard-wired in
U } to us to favour cute little pink things which
U } resemble humans. This is the level of emotion,
U } of animal feelings, not reason. It is for ensuring
U } survival of the species. I think we are now at the
U } point where quality is more important than quantity,
U } however. (4.5 billion, or was it 4.7?)
U Who's going to set the quality standards?
The naughty word here is "standards". The notion that standards
must be set, by someone, is evil. (ok, ok, that's my own opinion :-)
The universe does not have to be standardized and regulated.
U I think it's
U ridiculous to infer that the practice of abortion on demand
U represents a quality judgement of the fetus.
(Then why did you?)
U But I think
U Brian is talking more about the "quality" of life of those
U allowing the abortions.
Yes, that's a little closer to what I meant by "quality",
but I was thinking about humanity in general, not just the
particular parents of some particular fetus.
I think that it is time that man be more concerned about
the lives of sentient persons that already exist than
with the existence of more and more gene propagating bodies.
We have all the genes we need. All kinds. And more every day.
(A fetus may be stuffed to the gills with complex biological processes,
but there still is nobody in there.)
U And "quality" is a blank check
U where abortion on demand is concerned.
This is only true if the right to life, liberty,
pursuit of happiness, etc ("quality of life") is infinitely
more important than the life of a fetus. And if such is the
case, it is proper that "quality" be a "blank check".
However, we don't HAVE measures for the two.
(Why do you think this newsgroup exists?)
I just think that l,l,&p-of-h is more important than the life
of an empty body, for which liberty and pursuit of happiness
don't even apply.
U We can put anything
U we like there, or nothing at all, and it is enough justification
U for killing the fetus. Your use of the term "quality" is
U meaningless, Brian.
Why is it that if I bring up a new aspect to the discussion,
you assume that I mean it to be the only aspect of any importance
at all?
Conveying meaning is a two part process. I have to put a
meaning into words, and you have to take meaning out of the
words. I actually have thoughts which I want to convey.
(I am not a Shakespearian monkey! :-)
If my statements don't make sense to you, try harder to figure
out where I'm coming from. Or say "I don't understand",
and I can explain what I am talking about.
U Perhaps you could also explain why laws agianst killing you
U and I are more at the level of reason than emotion
Laws are rational attempts to get people to get along with each other.
Not all emotions are for helping every person get along with all
the rest. Have you noticed that people tend to lose their ability
to think when they are very emotional? And that they tend to
act as that emotion directs them, no matter what would be good
to do?
Most murders occur in anger.
Unwanted children (or abortions) happen because of lust.
Advertisers manipulate people thru the desire to be like others.
Etc...
U (and maybe
U why things at the level of emotion are irrelevant).
Why should I explain why things at the level of emotions are irrelevant
when that is not my stance? Reason is the way to find out what
will work best, to find a solution to problems, etc.
However, emotions give us problems and motivations,
something to use our reasoning FOR.
Emotions aren't a relevant way of deciding. They are something
that decisions are about.
Some emotions may be unappropriate, or at least less
important than other things, in various situations.
I was just saying that revulsion at seeing a creature disassembled
should not be the most important thing in the abortion discussion.
(from that, you decide emotions are irrelevant to anything?)
U If we no
U longer need to insure species survival,
I never said that. I only said our numbers are enough. There are
more aspects to survival than pounds of DNA. Matter of fact,
excessive population can harm a specie's chance for survival.
U why not be random in
U our killing instead of singling out that class of humans that
U are still in the womb?
Because there is a difference between those who are
and those who are still having their bodies formed.
One is more desirable than the other.
(BTW, your phrase there implies that we need or want to get rid of
bodies, and have chosen to pick on helpless innocents.
That is not the way it is. Besides, a fetus is no more
innocent than a frog. Guilt/innocence doesn't apply very well.)
U For once I'd like to see you explain
U these things without invoking the "rational" of that non-culpable,
U non-person, called "society".
Why should I explain how I feel only in terms of individuals,
when people happen to interact a whole bunch?
Don't reject a concept just because you don't understand it.
U The unaborted,
(If you weren't unaborted, you would be a contradiction.)
U Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^^^^^