brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (07/27/84)
In response to Laura Creighton's article replying to mine. (the why game)
Laura has some good, very good points.
Truth must not be put to the vote. Truth is. (Objections to net.philosophy :-)
Segments of society must not be "eliminatable". (ala Hitler, etc. :-< )
However, I don't think facts are being debated. (or shouldn't be.)
I am sure that most people in the discussion know that a fetus is
of the species homo-sapiens, has a complete set of genetic material,
and is alive. Most people should recognize the fact that not all
people who get pregnant are able to provide adequate care
for a newborn child. (Quite a lot of care is needed: love, food,
shelter, constant monitoring, education, health care. This must come
from someone who has their life under control enough to support
two. Not neccesarily from the mother, but it must come from somewhere.)
These facts shouldn't be in dispute.
What is a member of society? Society must define itself, lacking a
definition imposed from without. Mankind's experience with possible
members has been very limited. Just post (or pretty close) natal
homo sapiens. I don't >think< the "humanity" of pre-natal
homo-sapiens has been much of an issue. Non homo-sapiens
have hardly been considered at all. Just recently are we finding
that other species are intelligent: dolphins are usually mentioned,
and I know of at least one gorilla with a vocabulary of hundreds (1K+)
words, who is learning to read english, and to count. (Her name is Koko)
Science fiction, with really different critters, is just getting popular
with the masses. All in all, mankind has certainly not had much need
to ponder how to define society, in the way we are now trying to do in
this discussion.
So what makes one a member of society, and for what reason?
Maybe one must be an intelligent being. But what about
mentally retarded people, or people who have suffered accidents or
diseases? Ok, everything with homo-sapiens DNA. But what about
other intelligent species, terrestrial or not? And if we mean
EVERYthing with human DNA, then what about sperm and ova?
(think up a commandment for that!) Or, assuming we figure out
how to clone humans, what about fingernail clippings?
Sperm, ova, and random body parts (if cloning) all have the
"potential" to become a human being. I don't think then that
every such scrap should be allowed to develop its potential.
We'd starve in no time, from overpopulation. Pure "potential"
to be a human being is not enough. What is different
with a fertilized ovum?
It all breaks down in my mind (I think it does, anyway :-> )
into two conflicting desires, and one fuzzy region large enough
to choke a blue whale.
1> We want to preserve all members of society. Maybe because
they may be useful to society, also because of the golden
rule. We respect the desires of others to exist.
2> It is not good to make more and more and more members of
society. People cost money. Too many will hurt the
very ecology which supports the society. Unwanted members
of society are unhappy, unproductive, and often very bad
to society. (quantity might be worse than quality)
3> What, exactly, is a member of society?
I'll propose some bounds for what may constitute a "member of society",
(one who can have "rights") and leave it at that for now:
A> Anything unconceived is NOT a member of society.
(Else: thou shalt unite all sperm and egg. :-)
B> Anything past birth (or similar event) IS a member.
(I say this, because it >seems< to hold already, without debate;
it is already agreed upon)
C> Anything (SUBJECT, of course, to A & B above!) of a species
which has members who clearly demonstrate
enough intelligence to communicate, (and what else? I'ven't
given it much thought) IS a member of "society".
(Homo-sapiens fits. Even the oddballs. Maybe even dolphins
and gorillas will fit. :-)
So the question is: where do we draw the line, between conception and birth?
On what grounds? (Hint: have you ever met/known personally an embryo?
If you met one on the street, would you call it a sentient being (person)?)
I love hard questions!
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianplaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/31/84)
Ah, Brian, but you didn't keep asking why! Now you are off and talking about ``society defining itself''. Where did this come from? I can tell you one thing -- soceity does not go about defining itself -- somebody makes some generalisations about society, publishes them, and that gets to be what society is about. Is there really ``the ME generation?'' what about ``the silent generation''? William Buckley says that he is a member of the silent genration, and he sure isn't silent. So we need a definition of society. How about this: A society is a collection of individuals who are held together either by force or threat of force by certain ruling individual(s), or by voluntary association. Not that that was not an ``xor'' up there. Now you have a definition of society which does not go about asking whether every individual is a member. You can assume that all teh members of a society are there either because they are forced to be there whether they want to or not, or because they want to be there. You would then have to look at which laws have proven appropriate for voluntary associatings on individuals. The other thing to consider is that though new babies do cost money, there is a lot of money in North America which would voluntarily go (ie we don't need state supported housing for babies that are allowed to go to term rather than aborted) to feed and clothe North American babies. To begin with, there are a lot of parents who want to adopt, and even if you decided to exclude them for some reason, there are a lot of charitable organisations which regularily collect a lot of money and do various things with it. This money could be directed towards orphans at home as easily as orphans abroad. Indeed, there are a good many people who do not wish to support programs of foreign aid who would be willing to support programs of domestic aid. I do not know about the Unites States, but in Canada it was calculated (by someone I do nopt recognise and who may be lying) that if all the money that was spent by the various provincial public health agencies was combined with the money which the Pro Life groups have spent on promoting their cause there would be enough money to raise every aborted fetus in Canada, with a good bit left over. Of course, the figures will we as inexact as such figures always are, but it makes you stop and wonder. How much are those unwanted fetuses actually going to cost us anyway? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura