Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watrose.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watrose!datanguay
From: datanguay@watrose.UUCP (datanguay)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: The value of life (and other sundry stuff)
Message-ID: <6696@watrose.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 14:33:12 EST
Article-I.D.: watrose.6696
Posted: Thu Apr  5 14:33:12 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 02:19:37 EST
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 61

<eat me>
     Having been reading this newsgroup for the last few months, I guess it's 
time to submit something...

     Some people have claimed that the women's standard of living outweighs
the value of the live of the foetus. Some people have claimed that the
value of the life of the foetus outweighs anything. I would like to submit
my measuring stick for the value of things:

	 The value of a thing is equal to the amount of sorrow its
	 removal from existence will cause.

     The worth of a thing (be it person, foetus, dog, frog, carrot, or rock)
is thus equal to the amount of love generated by that thing. Note that this
is not really a measurable thing, so please don't scream at me about how
love(x) + love(y) > love(x+y) or about some other mathematical game. This
means, of course, that Fido is as valuable as a person (assuming that Fido
is loved by her owners, or by her lover, Rover). The same might hold true
for the Mona Lisa. Get the idea?

     Another point I would like to address is the value of death. "Life is
good" (from Laura Creighton) does not imply that "death is bad". It's the
prize that awaits us all. Personally, I would rather be dead than face a
life of misery. My biggest restraint from any thoughts of suicide is a
simple consideration of how much sorrow such a thing would bring to those
that love me (I've no reason to kill myself anyway, but if I had...).

     The foetus up for abortion is probably not loved by the pregnant woman
(henceforth I'll use the term mother, simply because it's easier to type).
Nobody else (except maybe the father and grandparents - more on that below)
really knows about the foetus and so there is no love for it there. If nobody
loves the foetus (or, indeed, any person) then the death of the foetus is
no loss.

     This philosophy does imply that the father (and grandparents or others
who might be close to the mother and foetus) has some say in whether or
not the mother should carry the foetus to term, since the death of the foetus
would then result in some sorrow on his part. Not being a terribly logical
person, I don't agree with this conclusion (sorry Laura - but I know your
really just an AI program :-). If the guy wants to keep alive any foetus 
that results then he should let the woman know in advance - tough titty to 
him if he doesn't and then doesn't like her decision.


Flamette: Some people argue in this group along the lines that
"a foetus is/isn't a human until you prove to me otherwise". This is silly.
This is a point of definition, not proof. You can try to convince me one
way or the other (I'm undecided) but nobody is in a position to prove
anything until an accepted, rigid definition of human can be given (which will
likely never happen).

Off the wall: Every so often I see these displays put up by pro-life groups.
They usually include some pictures of foetuses (sp?) all lit up by a 
background light so that they seem to glow from within. Whenever I see these
pictures I get a terrible desire to want to taste them, they look so delicious.
Anybody else ever get such an urge? (I also have an incredible urge to stick
out my foot and trip a car, but that's probably attributable to seeing
Monty Python at a very young age.)

The end is the means, but the means always end.
David Tanguay at watrose!datanguay