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: Re: The value of life (reply to Laura)
Message-ID: <6706@watrose.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Apr-84 17:54:33 EST
Article-I.D.: watrose.6706
Posted: Sun Apr  8 17:54:33 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Apr-84 05:44:00 EST
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 49

<>
> from Laura Creighton
> Unfortunately, I have to say that you cannot say "the value of
> something is proportional to the amount of sorrow that would 
> be generated if it were removed" simply because you cannot
> measure the amount of sorrow involved, and therefore you cannot
> really ever set up any rules whatsoever. 

The amount doesn't really matter. See below.

> It is impossible to know whether
> a fetus values its life more than a woman values getting an abortion,

What it thinks doesn't matter, since it won't be around to cry about the
decision.

> just as it is impossible to know whether I value strawberries and
> whipped cream more than you value your life. If I believe that I
> value strawberries more than you value your life, I should be
> perfectly justified in killing you if you would not give me the
> strawberries that you were eating to feed me.

A thing's value is not determined (under my scheme) by what I think of it,
but by what somebody thinks of it. I may not care about your life (don't
take this personally - just an illustration) but so long as somebody does
I'm not justified in taking your life since that will cause that other
person sorrow. Most of the rest of your objections/responses fall apart
from this misunderstanding (sorry) so I'll ignore them here and give you
another whack at it. By the way, you might be justified in killing me
over the strawberries if they meant so much (to the populace in general).
For example, our society generally thinks it's okay to shoot a guy who
tries to rob Fort Knox (say). The gold therein is valued more than the
robber's life (otherwise we could just let him walk in peacefully and
take it).

> For instance, you claim that you would rather be dead than handicapped --

I didn't say anything about being handicapped - I mentioned misery (or some
such abstract). Being handicapped is fine by me. Misery is having to spend
the rest of my life in Waterloo (pining for the forest) ...

The biggest hole in my view as I see it is the influence the grandparents
have. If they "value" the foetus then it shouldn't be killed, for their
sake. Personally, I would not give them much authority (moral, not
necessarily legal), but I've no good reason for this opinion (yet) so maybe
they should be able to block the abortion if want to.

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