Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: alternatives...(population stress reactions)
Message-ID: <885@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Apr-84 15:45:08 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.885
Posted: Sat Apr 21 15:45:08 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Apr-84 20:18:49 EST
References: <830@psuvm.UUCP>, <6349@gatech.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 58

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!mmt