anderson@ittvax.UUCP (Scott Anderson) (07/27/84)
I originally composed this article as a letter to Laura Creighton, in
response to her article entitled, "Re: Let's play a little game..." I
have decided to post it instead. While this takes a fairly
antagonistic tone, let me assure everyone that I have a great respect
for Laura as a person, and an intelligent one at that. However, in
this case, her reasoning resembles line noise (has utzoo crashed
recently?)
Note, this is mostly a meta-essay. I make a quick argument in favor of
choice; but, for the most part, this is not a position paper on
abortion. Those who wish to attack me and my stand on abortion
probably ought to wait for another day.
Excerpts from her article are indented.
================================================================
In setting up a society there are two clear-cut and well
documented ways that one can go. The first one is where
individuals transact with each other on a value for value basis.
The other way is through terrorism.
Suppose we decide that we do not want anything to do with the second
alternative. ....
This is a very slow way to begin an article for net.abortion: the
creation of society. (I remember a friend who started a one-page paper
for high school English with "Throughout history...." The teacher
pointed out that he would have to narrow his focus pretty quickly with
such a beginning.) If this is relevant to some point about abortion,
then I assume you will eventually be making abortion analogous to
either "terrorism" or "value-for-value transactions" (henceforth, VVT),
since you begin with this "dichotomy."
Secondly, this is not a dichotomy. "Terrorism" is not a "clear-cut and
well-documented way" to set up a society. It is "the use of violence
to achieve an end" [The American Heritage Dictionary]. The basis of a
society is an authority which regulates 1) the actions of members of
the society, 2) the interactions of members among themselves, and 3)
the interactions of members with the society as a whole. The examples
you give of classes of VVT--"direct barter" and "laissez faire
capitalism"--imply that you mean VVT as an economic term. Economics is
part of the basis of a society, but I do not think that all the actions
and interactions of members of a society can be described in economic
terms. If you believe that they can be, then I would be surprised.
I'd also ask you to explain to the newsgroup, in solely economic terms,
1) having a baby, and 2) having an abortion. That is the essential
dichotomy that this newsgroup is concerned with.
But anyway, Laura, what do you want us to do about preventing terrorism
in our society?
.... In general, what you
do is declare that ``all men have certain rights'' enumerate the
rights and then prosecute those who trangress against them.
This says that those who set up a society (Laura uses the word "you,")
arbitrarily choose things which we call "rights." And who are these
setters-up of society? I guess they're ordinary, fallible mortals like
you and me. They could change their minds about what is and is not a
"right." (Honest folks, this isn't just a pot-shot. Later on in
her article, Laura becomes very concerned with "TRUTH." Read on.)
These "rights" are just arbitration of desires. For instance, the
"right" to free speech is a decision in favor of my desire to speak my
mind over your desire not to have to deal with my speaking my mind.
Who says free speech is a "right?" Not the Soviet Union, yet they have
a society. James Madison, that's who. (I think ... or was it
Jefferson?) Was he (dare I say the word?) right? Ah, but by
definition, "rights" are arbitrary, so they cannot be judged right or
wrong. The "right" to free speech is simply a rule that the US happens
to still find workable, though sometimes with difficulty. Sometimes
the desire not to deal with your free speech can be very powerful (e.g.
pornography, libel, slander, bigotry, obscenity ....).
Many things in life are a compromise. America was designed and founded
on compromise--balance of power--between the various branches of
government and such. It strives for rule of the majority without
tyranny of the majority. (Criminal) law is the struggle for a reasonable
compromise between the rights of individuals and the rights of the
society. It is NOT the struggle between right and wrong. That, we
leave to individuals, and to God.
=========================================================================
The right to life features in such lists.
Actually, I don't know of anyplace in the Constitution or any laws
that grant the right to life. It might come under the right to
avoid "cruel and unusual punishment"; after all, that's where
all the anti-capital-punishment cases go to for succor. Currently,
the Supreme Court does not believe that there is a right to life,
or capital punishment would be barred. (Notice again how nine
ordinary mortals are the authority. They've even been known to
reverse previous courts. There is no absolute TRUTH here.)
Where there is a right, there must be a responsibility. If the
Constitution grants some people the right to vote, then a
responsibility is laid upon the polls to give those people a fair
chance, and to count their votes. If the Constitution grants women the
right to equal pay, then the responsibility is laid upon employers to
pay the correct wage should they hire a woman.
The responsibility is a cost to those it is laid upon (who are members
of society, with rights and all that), while the benefit accrues to
those that gain the right. Before the passing of any law, the costs
and benefits are (hopefully) weighed and if the benefits prevail, then
it is passed. Remember, "rights" are simply one way to arbitrate
conflicting desires.
Consider the furor over women's retirement annuities. If they have a
right to an equal payout, even though it will be unfair to men, then it
is the responsibility of the men to accept (and pay) that unfair
burden. Should we pass this law or not? Hmmmm.
If there is a right to life, and that life will necessarily be very
dependent and burdensome, then someone must bear that responsibility.
This is a cost; the life may be a benefit. These judgments could be
averaged over all cases (since they will vary), and if it turns out
that in the average case the benefits prevail, then a law COULD (not
"should," only "could") be passed which demanded that all cases be
treated as if they were the average case, knowing that the net result
would be a gain for society. On the other hand, a different law could
be passed, one in which the people involved in the case may weigh the
costs and benefits of that particular case and may make their own
decision.
The latter (That, folks, was my cursory argument in favor of choice.)
is sometimes called situational ethics--something that Laura is allergic
to, I know. Regardless of what kind of law is enacted, if any, you
(Laura) should realize that laws are based on a cost/benefit analysis,
not on abstract notions of right and wrong.
Please Laura, in your argument, do not put forth rights without
considering the concomitant responsibilities. If I state that everyone
has a right to a chicken in their pot, would you not ask me whose
responsibility it was to supply those chickens?
=========================================================================
if the fetus is a human being then the fetus should have the right
to life. if the fetus is not a human being then it never had any
rights in the first place.
You state this as if it were unarguable. I disagree. Why should a
fetal human being necessarily have a right to life?
(though perhaps some of the ``cruelty to animals'' laws might
apply. Some of the methods of abortion are very painful for the
aborted fetus -- so much so that they would not be acceptable ways
to slaughter pigs, for instance.)
I'm surprised that an intelligent person like you would stoop to
emotionalism in a debate. You can do better than this. Pigs indeed.
If the fetus is a human being, and you argue in favour of abortion
on demand, then you are saying that a certain section of the
population (perhaps even the majority) should have the power to
kill other sections of the population......
Oh no, I can see it coming. First, the abstracting.
This is an incredibly dangerous precident to take.
Second, the ominous implication.
You could use it to take away the lives of crippled or elderly
people, for instance.....
Last, the wild extrapolation.
Laura, something is a member of an abstract class if and only if it
shares certain properties with other elements of that class. (In this
case, "burdensome life" is the property you're pointing to.) There
necessarily are distinguishing properties between elements of the class
or otherwise they would not be separate elements. (I can think of one
or two properties which might distinguish the crippled and elderly from
fetuses.) Remember, they can be DISTINGUISHED--this is important.
I wrote an essay for this group once that was entitled "Where Do We
Draw the Line." You are advancing a "where do we draw the line?"
(implying that we cannot) argument, which my essay tried to refute.
If you would like, I will try to dig it up and mail it to you.
Nevertheless, I will devote a short paragraph to this topic.
Our legal system is based on the drawing of lines. I can think of at
least five different categories of death (1st murder, 2nd murder,
manslaughter, contributory negligence, malpractice ....) and I'm not
even a lawyer. These are distinguished, on a case-by-case basis
(surely you would not argue that this is another example of that
foul "situational ethics" and that we really ought to have one uniform
punishment for all who directly or indirectly cause death?), and
APPROPRIATE but DIFFERENT punishments meted out.
People sometimes become enraged when a DWI manslaughterer gets a light
sentence, but no one suggests that a light sentence will lead to more
murders, because of the "incredibly dangerous precedent" that was set.
There is a line between manslaughter and murder. I believe we can also
draw a line between fetuses and old cripples, should that be judged
desirable.
Lastly, if you wish to argue that abortion is wrong, then do so. If
you wish to argue that it is wrong because killing old cripples is
wrong, and that abortion will lead to killing old cripples, then
your argument is seductive, but specious. I deny the causal link.
======================================================================
The other serious problem is deciding *by public opinion* whether a
fetus is a human being or not. This is sheer idiocy. You do not
decide a matter of fact by public opinion.
Whether or not a fetus is human is not a matter of fact. It is a matter
of definition. You could as well ask a philologist as an anthropologist.
"Lucy" (the old bones they found in Olduvai) is generally agreed to be a
hominid, but there is disagreement about whether or not she is human.
Her actual characteristics (size of teeth, shape of bones, etc.) are
matters of fact, but what collection of characteristics is "human" is
a matter of definition.
Public opinion has yet to change the speed of light, or the law of
gravity. You cannot legislate the truth into existence.
I'm surprised you didn't also mention the Indiana state legislature vs.
PI. Yes, public opinion has little effect on these things. But, it
has had a good deal of effect on, say, considering blacks and women to
be first class citizens, complete with all rights and responsibilities.
(Haven't quite passed ERA yet, ... but that's another newsgroup.) These
are matters of definition and common usage. These are the province
of public opinion--society, if you will. Possibly: the law.
Public opinion is dangerous. 3 million people who are wrong are
still wrong.
Yes, but who will tell us what is right? There is no conductor who
imposes harmony upon the orchestra of the human race, making music
where once there was only cacophony. (We could elect one; but, gosh,
that would mean majority rule! What we need is TRUTH! Am I being
sarcastic enough? :-)
In the world I live in, absolute truth is not a knowable thing, except
for things that don't matter (2 + 3, definitely, positively, equals 5.
THAT! my friends, is ABSOLUTE TRUTH! Unless, of course, we're talking
mod 4, in which case it's 1, or mod 5, in which case it's 0, or .... I
give up.)
In the world I live in, we muddle through the best we can. We try to
do the things we think are "right," and avoid the things we think are
"wrong." But for all I know, God is rabidly anti-death, and I will
go to hell for eating McDonald's hamburgers, thereby encouraging the
slaughter of innocent cows. Oh well. I tried.
In Summary:
I. Laura argues that society ought to be based on VVTs, not
terrorism. I don't understand this: nether is a basis
for society--law is.
II. Laura argues that society avoids terrorism by making up
"rights." I agree that rights are made up.
III. Laura argues that society usually grants the right to life.
I deny this: it is certainly not true whereever there
is capital punishment, such as the USA.
IV. Laura argues that if a fetus is human, it has the right
to life. I deny this, based on III.
V. Laura argues that killing a fetus is wrong because it will
lead to killing other disadvantaged groups. I deny this
causal link.
VI. Laura argues that whether or not a fetus is human is a
matter of truth, and not amenable to public opinion. I deny
this--it is a matter of definition.
Well folks, that's it. I'm going to go hide now. If you put the keyword
"flame" in the subject line of any personal mail to me, then I can delete
it without having to go through the ego-bruising of reading it. Be nice;
my shrink's on vacation.
Scott D. Anderson
decvax!ittvax!anderson