Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp
From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: getting at roots of abortion
Message-ID: <938@shark.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 04:45:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.938
Posted: Fri Jul 27 04:45:27 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 10:25:38 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 90

In response to Laura Creighton's article replying to mine. (the why game)

Laura has some good, very good points.
Truth must not be put to the vote.   Truth is. (Objections to net.philosophy :-)
Segments of society must not be "eliminatable".  (ala  Hitler, etc.  :-<       )

However, I don't think facts are being debated.  (or shouldn't be.)
I am sure that most people in the discussion know that a fetus is
of the species homo-sapiens, has a complete set of genetic material,
and is alive.  Most people should recognize the fact that not all
people who get pregnant are able to provide adequate care 
for a newborn child.  (Quite a lot of care is needed: love, food, 
shelter, constant monitoring, education, health care.  This must come 
from someone who has their life under control enough to support 
two.  Not neccesarily from the mother, but it must come from somewhere.) 
These facts shouldn't be in dispute.  


What is a member of society?  Society must define itself, lacking a
definition imposed from without.  Mankind's experience with possible
members has been very limited.  Just post (or pretty close) natal 
homo sapiens. I don't >think< the "humanity" of pre-natal 
homo-sapiens has been much of an issue.  Non homo-sapiens
have hardly been considered at all.  Just recently are we finding
that other species are intelligent:  dolphins are usually mentioned,
and I know of at least one gorilla with a vocabulary of hundreds (1K+)
words, who is learning to read english, and to count.  (Her name is Koko)
Science fiction, with really different critters, is just getting popular
with the masses.  All in all, mankind has certainly not had much need
to ponder how to define society, in the way we are now trying to do in
this discussion.

So what makes one a member of society, and for what reason?
Maybe one must be an intelligent being.  But what about 
mentally retarded people, or people who have suffered accidents or
diseases?  Ok, everything with homo-sapiens DNA.  But what about
other intelligent species, terrestrial or not?  And if we mean
EVERYthing with human DNA, then what about sperm and ova?
(think up a commandment for that!)  Or, assuming we figure out
how to clone humans, what about fingernail clippings?
Sperm, ova, and random body parts (if cloning) all have the
"potential" to become a human being.  I don't think then that
every such scrap should be allowed to develop its potential.
We'd starve in no time, from overpopulation.  Pure "potential"
to be a human being is not enough.  What is different
with a fertilized ovum?


It all breaks down in my mind (I think it does, anyway  :->     )
into two conflicting desires, and one fuzzy region large enough 
to choke a blue whale.

1>	We want to preserve all members of society.  Maybe because
	they may be useful to society, also because of the golden 
	rule.  We respect the desires of others to exist.

2>	It is not good to make more and more and more members of
	society.  People cost money.  Too many will hurt the 
	very ecology which supports the society.  Unwanted members
	of society are unhappy, unproductive, and often very bad
	to society.   (quantity might be worse than quality)

3>	What, exactly, is a member of society?


I'll propose some bounds for what may constitute a "member of society",
(one who can have "rights") and leave it at that for now:  

A>	Anything unconceived is NOT a member of society.
	(Else: thou shalt unite all sperm and egg.  :-)

B>	Anything past birth (or similar event) IS a member.
	(I say this, because it >seems< to hold already, without debate;
	 it is already agreed upon)

C>	Anything (SUBJECT, of course, to A & B above!) of a species 
	which has members who clearly demonstrate
	enough intelligence to communicate, (and what else?  I'ven't 
	given it much thought) IS a member of "society".
	(Homo-sapiens fits. Even the oddballs.  Maybe even dolphins
	and gorillas will fit.  :-)


So the question is: where do we draw the line, between conception and birth?
On what grounds?  (Hint: have you ever met/known personally an embryo? 
If you met one on the street, would you call it a sentient being (person)?)

		I love hard questions!

Brian Peterson  {ucbvax, ihnp4,  }   !tektronix!shark!brianp