owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (04/20/84)
*****************START of QUOTE************************* > >" human infanticide is too widespread historically and geographically > >to be explained away just as a pathology or the peculiarity of some > >aberrant culture." > > But please consider: if a practice is > >so widespread among so many forms of life which either were created > >by God or evolved over many millions of years, is it not possible > >that this practice might answer some real need? >0********************************** > Some further conclusions that can be concluded (:-) > The majority of societies in history believed in a god. Ergo, that > fulfilled a need, so we should too. > The majority of societies in history neither had representative > government nor a bill of rights. Ditto. > The majority of societies in history were run by kings. Ergo, we'd >better get one too. Your suggestions (:-) refer to means rather than needs: the need to relate to and explain the universe can be satisfied by religion (many kinds) or science. The need for social structure (common to all social animals) can be satisfied in many ways: humans do it with constitutional democracy, kingship, tribal councils, empire, and many other ways; animals have oligarchies, matriarchies, 'pecking order' etc. If they do not rise to the heights of constitutional democracy, they don't descend to the depths of empire & slavery either. I have never heard of a successful anarchy among humans or animals. The need I had in mind was that of correlating the number of offspring with available child-care resources. ***************END of QUOTE*************** Yet, in your article, you fail to show how the "means" of infanticide to answer the "need" is different from the suggestion of my "means" to accomplish those "needs". *******************START of QUOTE*************************** I had hoped to show that the *alternative* to abortion is very often neither happy adoption nor preventive birth control, but neglect, abandonment, or death for great numbers of infants and young children; and that that pattern is widespread and of long standing - not easily eradicated with a law and a lecture on ethics. Over 2000 years ago Aristotle advocated abortion as better than the common practice of infanticide; due to lack of medical technique it was never done. One of my quotes that you didn't repeat was "40 million abandoned children in the Western hemisphere". That is a here-and-now alternative to abortion; are you really sure it is better? *******************END of QUOTE********************* How about trying to love them??? How about developing the compassion to take care of them??? I note that you mention "Western Hemisphere". Why not be more precise about it, and say "south of the Rio Grande", where strictures on birth control methods, poverty, and the damnable Macho man mentality that makes the use of the rythmn method difficult to practice has contributed to the large population of abandoned children there? More precisely, why advocate a method that supposedly is adopted in emergency conditions, without the benefits of contraception, in order to preserve the species, as a policy for a land with a stablized population, that invented contraception, and whose main health problem is overweight? One does have the right to kill someone if that person is actively threatening your physical life, but if the person is killed apart from the active threat, then it potentially murder since the preconditions did not exist to make the act justifiable. Also, if one wishes to point out quotes not repeated, why didn't you answer my contention that this is just a "bandwagon" argument? (Everyone else is doing it, so why not us??) In another vein, let me ask: what IS the difference between a fetus and an infant, that makes infanticide so abhorrent that abortion is preferable, when the only difference apparent is that the first is younger than the second, and the first is unseen while the second is visible? Also, what in the argument presented prevents someone from advocating that those 40 million abandoned children be killed (er terminated), because society cannot support them?? How about the aged? The defective? One has opened a veritable can of worms when one says that "it is expedient that one man (or group or class) should die that the nation not perish." Survival on those terms may not be worth living. Gerald Owens Owens@gatech
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/21/84)
Two notes from Gerald Owens spur this comment:
=================
One has opened a veritable can of worms when one says that "it is
expedient that one man (or group or class) should die that the
nation not perish." Survival on those terms may not be worth living.
=================
and
=================
So was slavery at one time. If the fetus is not human, then granted,
it should be a personal decision, but if it is, then abortion is
murder and the state has every right to step in and preserve
the civil rights of the fetus. Remember, there have been times
and places where the majority was quite wrong. Please address
the status of the fetus explicity, rather than doing it implicitly
by advocating positions that imply that the question of whether
it is human or not has already been answered to the negative
(i.e. don't beg the question).
=================
I think that the raging about abortion and choice has been addressing
the wrong issues. It DOESN'T matter whether we label the fetus as human.
We (generically) kill humans quite happily, either deliberately through
sanctioned wars, less deliberately by allowing unsafe conditions to exist,
or by pure accident. We also kill other animals (and vegetables) so that
we may live (or live more comfortably than we might otherwise do). Seen
from the viewpoint of a God who might have some proprietary interest, or
of an extra-terrestrial doing a little research, why should we assume
we have more rights than they, other than the purely selfish motive?
The Earth is under tremendous (human) population pressure. We are
driving species to extinction at a faster rate than the world has seen
since the end of the Cretaceous. Humanity itself is under stress.
Many species exhibit drastically altered behaviour under population
stress than they exhibit under good conditions. Why should humanity
be any different? Infanticide and abortion are some behaviours that
show up in other species. Perhaps they are stress reactions in humans
as well.
If there were very few humans on Earth, I doubt very much that there
would be a pro-choice faction of any size. Each potential human would
be too precious to lose. On the other hand, when the world population
doubles or quadruples, I doubt whether the pro-life faction will have
many members. As Owens says, survival on those terms may not be
worth having; but it will perhaps be the only way in which our species
will survive.
There are at least two contrasting approaches to the moral issues:
(i) Stick to your principles, even at the cost of your life -- and the
lives of those around you;
(ii) Adjust your behaviour to the circumstances.
The choice depends on whether you think THIS life is the only one you
have, and whether you think you have the right to force others to
rely for their survival on your belief.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtdyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (04/23/84)
Martin Taylor is surely being facetious when he attempts to link the modern practice of abortion to population pressures! Even given the neo-Malthusian problems in his argument, I find it hard to accept the idea that most modern (middle-class, urban, working) women are aborting fetuses for reasons of overpopulation (overcrowding in their condos, perhaps?) Also, I just don't understand how people argue problems of ethics from scientific Darwinian evidence! Human lives may or may not be "precious" to Nature, given floods, population pressures, natural disasters, etc. But that does not address the issues of how we are to treat each other, unless one wishes to abandon ethics entirely in deference to the Natural Order. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP (04/23/84)
I don't know where in HECK the logic for those basenotes was from!! There's gotta be a better method of indicating multiply replies than putting a new brocket on the left hand side! Really confusing after the third or so ">"! Anyway, on to the subject matter: Gerald Owens states in a query on what to do with the unwanted babies: > How about trying to love them??? How about developing the compassion > to take care of them??? For one, I can see neo-Nazis saying the same thing to the mid-life Jews in reference to the neat little tattoo numbers on their arms. Just people can learn to live with something is no justification to making them get the something in the first place. More comments here: > One does have the right to kill someone if > that person is actively threatening your physical life, but if the > person is killed apart from the active threat, then it potentially [is] > murder since the preconditions did not exist to make the act > justifiable. Debatable. One very basic, very low-level, unfeeling, ulitarian (sp?) (right word?) reason that we have laws against murder is that people would miss the person killed. The burglar has a family to support, even the killer we pardon off to jail. Basically, the fetus doesn't mean a thing to the world. I'm sure the religious type and potential-human-being people could debate it for hours, but EVERYTHING potentially could potentially do ANYTHING. And even more here, and more even, so I'll stop these dumb introductions... > What IS the difference between a fetus and an infant, that > makes infanticide so abhorrent that abortion is preferable, when the > only difference apparent is that the first is younger than the second, > and the first is unseen while the second is visible? Just the reason that it's easier to kill off someone you can't see, or to callously break up with someone over the phone (or through mail) -- we tend to get our emotions in the way a lot more if we can see and experience the victims of our decisions. The less immediate contact, the easier it is to build up that solid wall of cold callousness to make a deeply emotional decision, like an abortion. So, philosophy majors - are we being true and fair to ourselves to use the anomonity of a fetus to our advantage? > Also, what in > the argument presented prevents someone from advocating that those > 40 million abandoned children be killed (er terminated), because > society cannot support them?? How about the aged? The defective? > One has opened a veritable can of worms when one says that "it is > expedient that one man (or group or class) should die that the > nation not perish." Survival on those terms may not be worth living. Easy. I don't have to directly support those 40 million abandoned children, or the aged, the crippled (defective is really cruel!). I'll pay money in taxes and such so that they'll have their lives perhaps a little happier, but they certainly don't need as much care and sacrificing (from me) as does a baby! Animals tend to kill or allow to die their aged and crippled. Survival of the fittest is the name of the game in a lot of markets and jobs today. Should it be in living as well? Tune in next week, same abort time, same aborted channel! (Or send some mail and I'll be happy to discuss almost everything under the sun) Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (04/23/84)
***********Quote from Mr. Taylor************ I think that the raging about abortion and choice has been addressing the wrong issues. It DOESN'T matter whether we label the fetus as human. We (generically) kill humans quite happily, either deliberately through sanctioned wars, less deliberately by allowing unsafe conditions to exist, or by pure accident. We also kill other animals (and vegetables) so that we may live (or live more comfortably than we might otherwise do). Seen from the viewpoint of a God who might have some proprietary interest, or of an extra-terrestrial doing a little research, why should we assume we have more rights than they, other than the purely selfish motive? ***********End of quote********************* If we simply intend to kill, then yes, this discussion is a waste of time. If human life is no more valuable than anything else, then distinctions are silly. However, we behave in ways that seem to belie that. Why bother with murder? Why bother about those kids in the first place?? i.e. why worry about suffering if their lives are no more valuable than a snail darters? Is there anybody out there who truly wishes to live in a society where lives are held to be of little value? Of course, such a society has not existed for long. one may quote pragmatics, but why should we have a society at all, then? ******Start of quote******* There are at least two contrasting approaches to the moral issues: (i) Stick to your principles, even at the cost of your life -- and the lives of those around you; (ii) Adjust your behaviour to the circumstances. The choice depends on whether you think THIS life is the only one you have, and whether you think you have the right to force others to rely for their survival on your belief. ******End of quote********** I naturally choose (ii), since that is one of the distinguishing features of the human race. If I am not mistaken, the Pro-choice people adhere to (i), sticking to their principles of free choice, even at the cost of the lives of others (although they do not explain why THEIR comfort and convenience should dictate the death of an innocent human being like the fetus). Oh! Was I supposed to choose the other way?? But good government and good religion has always had, as their goal, the adjustment of behavior if other people would be hurt by it. That is, to me, the essence of civilized behavior. Gerald Owens Owens@gatech
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/24/84)
==================
Martin Taylor is surely being facetious when he attempts to link the
modern practice of abortion to population pressures! Even given the
neo-Malthusian problems in his argument, I find it hard to accept the
idea that most modern (middle-class, urban, working) women are aborting
fetuses for reasons of overpopulation (overcrowding in their condos,
perhaps?)
==================
No, I wasn't being facetious, but then neither was I suggesting that
individuals consider population pressures when contemplating abortion.
I proposed a hypothesis to the effect that the human species might react
in the way other species react to population pressures, and that this
might be a reason abortion and infanticide tends to happen under stress.
How that is expressed in the perceived rationale of any individual is
quite a different question. There are many other physiological
and psychological reactions to stress in other species; why not in
humans? Stress changes body chemistry, and hence behaviour.
I suspect that we would treat each other VERY differently (and much more
gently) in the absence of population stress, and that includes our
treatment of children, both born and unborn.
Please don't confuse hypotheses suggested for possible test with
prescriptions for what behaviour should be considered ethical.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (04/25/84)
Ah, OK, I see your point. Anyway, I want to emphasize that abortion,
infanticide and other nasties need not have a stress-related component
to become active in human societies. Culture and society become
correspondingly strong forces which might engender such behavior
in the absence of undue stress.
Why, I was just reading in Time magazine (that august journal) that
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/26/84)
One thing that we humans often do when there is too much population stress
is to go to war, which is just an organised random killing method.
We do react differently under stress.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley