owens@gatech.UUCP (07/14/84)
<***> There are a few uncomfortble facts about pregnancy and abortion that I think some are trying to evade. 1. The problem with a fetus is not what it is, but what it will be. Despite Mr. Alan's obscurations, the fetus IS a phase in the life cycle of a human being. Just as one MUST be a teenager before one can be an adult, due to the process of development, so one MUST be a fetus before one can be an infant, due to the same process. The killing of infants is frowned upon today (thankfully, though from some of the comments in this group, one wonders how long this attitude will persist.), and if left to it's own devices, that irritating fetus IS going to be an infant in nine months or less, and so fall within the pale of human law. Although giving the brat away is a viable option, many seem to regard killing as a better option. However if one waited until the fetus became an infant, killing the problem is bound to get one talked about, so one plans ahead and kills the *precursor* of the infant. No fetus, no infant. No infant, no teenager, and no teenager, no adult. That's what comes from being a phase in the life cycle of a human being. A neat piece of planning, which also is used to great effect in Lebanon: One isn't really massacreing (sp?) women and children, one is merely "planning ahead" and eliminating the producers and *precursors* of the soldiers who will resist being killed more effectively than can the producers and precursors. 2. Fetuses don't 'happen'. They are 'caused'. I am probably saying the obvious, but the vast number of pregnancies that are terminated are not immaculate conceptions. Some of the mothers were ignorant of birth control, some didn't intend to get pregnant when they took that calculated risk, some were the victims of a failed birth control method, and some, sadly, were raped. But I doubt that a fetus was bored of hanging around some street corner and decided to butt into a woman's life and get born. Any discussion of the moralities of abortion must take into account how the pregnancy got started in the first place. 3. Many abortion decisions are economic or social in nature. I used to work at a church-owned college, and was sort of proud of the fact that the young people there hardly got "into trouble". That is, until I later discovered that the REAL reason for my church's waffling on the abortion issue was to leave the abortion option open as something that the women's deans could propose to the young women who did get into trouble. It just would not do to have that sort of "bad advertising" being made, you see. Also, as Mr. Alan has pointed out, there are economic problems with having a baby at the wrong time, something which NOBODY disputes. I merely wish to point out that the argument "Abortion is OK because the fetus isn't a XXX" is different from "Abortion is OK because it will help prevent the deterioration of a person's economic status", and one could just as well use the second argument to justify ANYTHING. 4. The value of human life is being questioned. The humanist position is that "man is the measure of all things". However, if one has read recent articles in this newsgroup, it is obvious that in order to defend abortion, the uniqueness and value of a human being is being degraded. "murder" isn't bad, just inconvenient in some cases. The human race isn't special, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Too bad my site doesn't keep all the abortion articles, for then I could dig out old articles where people swore up and down that such attitudes "could never happen here", only to change their tune as the arguments have gone against them. Gerald Owens Owens@Gatech Spock: Why did you do it? Kirk: Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
brianp@shark.UUCP (07/17/84)
From: owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) Subject: uncomfortable facts Lines: 74 1. The problem with a fetus is not what it is, but what it will be. Is mere "potential" a legitimate basis for deciding the rights of the unborn? If I take a bit of someone's liver, doctors can keep it alive, and in not much time, will be able to bring its dna to its "full potential". (cloning) 2. Fetuses don't 'happen'. They are 'caused'. If you assume people have sex, then fetuses "happen." Not everyone knows all the facts. That's why we have sex education. What about all the "myths", like "you can't get pregnant the first time" that young people believe? Among responsible people, fetuses are "caused". I am, of course, looking at it from the "intent" point of view, rather than the "biological act" point of view. 3. Many abortion decisions are economic or social in nature. there are economic problems with having a baby at the wrong time, something which NOBODY disputes. Those social problems: If we are civilized sapient beings, don't we want to give our members decent lives and opportunities? An unwanted, unloved child is not the goal of anyone, I don't think. (unless there are some real fanatical "natural selection" types out there. I merely wish to point out that the argument "Abortion is OK because the fetus isn't a XXX" is different from "Abortion is OK because it will help prevent the deterioration of a person's economic status", and one could just as well use the second argument to justify ANYTHING. No, you can't. You could use it for anything if it was "xyz would help IMPROVE a person's economic status." "Preventing deterioration" implies (at least to me) defending against something bad which happens TO you. However, if one has read recent articles in this newsgroup, it is obvious that in order to defend abortion, the uniqueness and value of a human being is being degraded. The problem is: "what is a human being?" We know that a fetus is a stage in the life of a Homo Sapiens animal, but are we going to decide that everyone with homosapiens dna is a "human being" (a "person"). [a point to ponder: "Who" is that fetus being aborted. That might help bring out good questions on what we mean by "person"] "murder" isn't bad, just inconvenient in some cases. The human race isn't special, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Overpopulation, survival of the fitest, weeding out rejects, etc... If we treat the population of homo sapiens like any other species, this all makes sense. If we treat it as a collection of sapient beings, this stance is invalid, and the question about abortion no longer is quite as easy. Brian Peterson tektronix!shark!brianp