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: Let's play a little game...
Message-ID: <4125@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 11:45:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4125
Posted: Mon Jul 23 11:45:51 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jul-84 11:45:51 EDT
References: <911@shark.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 88

In setting up a society there are two clear-cut and well documented
ways that one can go. The first one is where individuals transact
with each other on a value for value basis. There are several
variations on this theme, ranging from direct barter to laisez-faire
capitalism.

The other way is through terrorism. You do what Big Julie wants or
Big Julie will kill you, enslave you, take away your property,
kidnap or torture your relatives... There are several variations
on this scheme, including some dictatorships and other state
controlled nations. 

Suppose we decide that we do not want anything to do with the second
alternative. The first thing that we must do is set up a method
where one is strongly discouraged from using force or threat of
force to take something from somebody else. In general, what you
do is declare that ``all men have certain rights'' enumerate the
rights and then prosecute those who trangress against them.

The right to life features in such lists. 

if the fetus is a human being then the fetus should have the right to
life. if the fetus is not a human being then it never had any rights
in the first place. (though perhaps some of the ``cruelty to animals''
laws might apply. Some of the methods of abortion are very painful
for the aborted fetus -- so much so that they would not be acceptable
ways to slaughter pigs, for instance.)

If the fetus is a human being, and you argue in favour of abortion
on demand, then you are saying that a  certain section of the
population (perhaps even the majority) should have the power to
kill other sections of the population. Or to extort others on the
strength of threat of death (marry me or I'll have an abortion!).
No matter what the benefits to any segment of the population, you
have taken away a fundamental right from others.

This is an incredibly dangerous precident to take. You could use
it to take away the lives of crippled or elderly people, for
instance. the same arguments ``well, they won't have a happy
life'' and ``they are a burden on their relatives'' and  ``they
aren't wanted'' apply. 

The other serious problem is deciding *by public opinion* whether a
fetus is a human being or not. This is sheer idiocy. You do not
decide a matter of fact by public opinion. Public opinion has
yet to change the speed of light, or the law of gravity. You cannot
legislate the truth into existence. In cases where the truth is
unknown, or imperfectly known, the last thing that you want to do
is to submit the choice for public vote. If the experts in the field
cannot come up with the truth, then the `common man' cannot be
expected to. He may have strong opinions, but people have had stong
opinions about the flatness of the earth, that Jews were all inhuman
monsters who poisoned wells and ate unbaptised Christian children,
and that burying a potato with three drops of the blood of the one
you hate (and appropriate chanting and whatnot) by the light of the
new moon will cause him to come down with some ``wasting disease''
as the potato rots...and what to do with potato buriers when
you find them, or even suspect that your neighbour is one.

Public opinion is dangerous. 3 million people who are wrong are
still wrong.

So what does one do when one does not have the evidence to make
a decision? Especially in the case of defining ``what is a huamn
being'' something which is even likely to never have a
satisfactory answer? 

One thing to consider is whether one is prepared to be wrong. The
consequences of not aborting a fetus which is not a humen being
(though this is unknown to us at the time) is that there is an
extra person born who needn't be. The consequences of aborting a
fetus that is a human being are multifold. But the worst that I
see are:

	the actual killing
	the sanctioning of that killing 
and
	the assertion that truth is a matter of public opinion.

This is so close to belief==truth that it is staggering to consider.

*	*	*	*

Sorry Brian, no short answers. However, I think I have gone through
several ``whys''in this...

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura