psuvm%cjc@psuvax.UUCP (04/18/84)
> >" 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. 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? Through most of our history, most of us have kept to the pattern of having as many children as possible, and the strong or favored or lucky survived. Few if any cultures have effectively practiced contraception by chastity, and until recently there were no other methods. As far as leading to a disregard for the value of life, I think an 'easy come easy go, there'll be another one next year' attitude associated with too-frequent births and deaths has been just as damaging as legal abortion can be. (See "Centuries of Childhood" or "A Distant Mirror" for disregard for life & children in the [Christian] Middle Ages) To restate: out here in the real world where us non-philosophers live, among people who do not or cannot practice preventive contraception (most of the species for most of history), abortion is an improvement over infanticide (inadvertant or deliberate) Don't dump it until you provide a workable improvement. To address a few of your other points: > some of His creations are capable of evil (like us) I may misunderstand your reference here but will try an example. The !Kung Bushmen are a very gentle peaceable people; they love their children dearly, honor their old people, and do their best to care for companions disabled by injury or illness. They have lived for many generations in a very harsh environment, and if they believe that, under certain circumstances, it is better that one should die rather than many suffer hardship I do not judge them evil. >Fourthly, if evolution is assumed, then we are either mastered by it >or masters of it, so take your pick. If we could get a clear understanding of what we are and where we came from, we might have a better chance of going where we want to. > However, I won't be surprised if, >after taking our cues of how to behave from the lower animals, we >eventually become like them. Many animals manage their reproductive affairs better than most humans do: some space births so that the mother rarely has more than she can manage well; most of the greater apes, for example bear at an interval of 3 to 5 years. Many lengthen the interval even more in hard times; elephants average a calf in 4 years, but a group in a small reservation decreased that to one in 7 years. Some limit the reproductive population, eg. only those pairs who can hold a suitable territory have young, others do not. If humans were capable of such restraint we would have far fewer problems. Through most of our history, most of us have kept to the pattern of having as many children as possible, and the strong or favored or lucky survived. Few if any cultures have effectively practiced contraception by chastity, and until recently there were no other methods. As far as leading to a disregard for the value of life, I think an 'easy come easy go, there'll be another one next year' attitude associated with too-frequent births and deaths has been just as damaging as legal abortion can be. (See "Centuries of Childhood" or "A Distant Mirror" for disregard for life & children in the [Christian] Middle Ages) C. Clark (cjc@psuvm - BITNET)