Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: killing human beings
Message-ID: <3681@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Mar-84 03:38:49 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3681
Posted: Mon Mar 26 03:38:49 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Mar-84 03:38:49 EST
References: <215@ihnp1.UUCP>, <366@denelcor.UUCP>, <1285@sdccs6.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 103

This business about the "take the baby or take the 14 year old" is
precisely what I find frightening about abortion. The idea is that
the 14 year old is more valuable than the baby precisely because it
has lived longer. (Generally though, grandmothers are less valuable
than the 14 year olds because they have lived longer, though, so
the issue isn't as cut and dried.) The difficulty is that it presumes
that it is possible to measure the value of a human being, and really
compare one against the other. If you examine the boundary conditions
(say a 14 year old and a 13 year old for instance) you will see that
most people do not think that age is sufficient criteria of value.

I do not think that an objective standard can be found. For instance,
I might decide that if the abortion was being considered for the
purpose of birth control then the pregnant adult has just demonstated
that she is horribly irresponsible. The fetus, at any rate, has not
demonstated such irresponsibility. Given that I value responsibility
more than age, the logical thing seems to be to execute the failed
mother and keep the fetus...

Hmm. there is clearly something wrong here. Any position which leaves
you thinking that it is logical to execute people wholesale is flawed.
Let us see where the flaw is. Hmm. The pregnant woman, though irresponsible,
has the potential to not behave in such a bad manner. And, whatever her
irresponsibility, it is not justified to kill her for it. 

Now go back to the fetus. If it is not a human being, then there is no
problem with abortion. If it is a human being, then for exactly the same
reasons you should not kill it. (Existence does not justify killing, and
despite all the talk of unwanted children turning into criminals, there
have always existed unwanted children who have turned out rather well.)

But, if you start saying presenting platforms where it is presumed necessary
to sacrifice a baby for the sake of a 14 year old, a lot of questions
emerge out from the wordwork. If you do not protect life because it is
intrinsically valuable then how is one to make a decision between
the baby and the 14 year old? If I decided that I had done a rather bad
job of being a parent with the 14 year old (my first child) should I
dispose of him on the grounds that I believe that I will do a better
job with the baby? Should I keep the 14 year old because I know him better and
have invested more in his upbringing? What if I feel that I love the baby
more? 

This is the classic utilitarian problem. For all the talk of ``objectively
measuring the greatest good for the greatest number'' I am left wondering
how on earth they do it! It seems a much more difficult problem of
measuring than (say) measuring the results of various strategies in
chess. And most people play lousy chess. Great chess players seem to
work on intuition, and aren't involved in brute-force computational
searches. Suppose utilitarians work the same way. If this is the case
then this is tantemount to saying that the utilitarians are acting on
*whim* or *desires* which are hardly rational. Your desires will have
a great effect on the outcome. 

If this is the case, then it boils down to ``the woman wants an abortion
so let her have one''. All of this talk about *why* a person might
want an abortion may be specious, since the very desire to have one
will be what is most reflected in the decision, given this premise
on how utilitarians make decisions. 

but ``it is right because I want it'' only is reasonable in the majority
of cases, and killing another human being is one of the exceptions. So
we are back to ``is the fetus a human being''?

This can get stretched to ``is a baby a human being'' if you like.
Most people think that babies are human beings. If they are wrong, it
must be because there is an objective definition of human being which
is not satisfied by a baby. I sure don't know what it is. 

Suppose, for the purpose of argument, we decide to define a human being
as a conscious entity with DNA structured in such-and-such a fashion,
and organised in such and such a way. A lot of people would be
pleased with this definition. (Some would want to say ``such-and-such
a level of consciousness'' as well, let us give them that.) By this definition,
birth control pills are okay (since it is pretty well agreed that there
has to be a brain before there is consciousness) and killing babies isn't.
However, there are a whole collection of problems with the whole
thing. It may be obvious that there is no brain in the first week
after conception, and obvious that there *is* one the last week before
birth, but where does one draw the line? Abortion is fine in
the first month and not-fine after the 6th month and nobody knows
about months 2-4? You have only pared teh question down a little.
What do we do about the people who want to have an abortion who are in
months 2-4? This is when the bulk of people who want to have abortions
finally discover that they are pregnant, so this decision is the one that 
will effect them.

What about fetuses with congenital problems. Often, their DNA is
structured in a way different from others. Does this mean that they
are not human by our definition? There are going to be a lot of
opposition to that premise if that is the case. 

The end answer is that at some time a fetus becomes a human being.
You run into Zeno's paradox if you try to pin it down much further than
that. Paradoxes are tricky things. It is usually best to avoid them
whenever possible. But then you have all heard me say this bit
before...

-- 
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura

	"Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then
	 you're not doing it right."		-- toad terrific