Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: what-if-you're-raped argument
Message-ID: <197@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Oct-84 11:30:06 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.197
Posted: Mon Oct 29 11:30:06 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Nov-84 04:36:30 EST
References: <1987@stolaf.UUCP> <47700016@hpfcla.UUCP> <441@umcp-cs.UUCP> <196@cybvax0.UUCP> <483@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 70

Liz Allen writes:
> Hmmm.  Was I mistaken to assume that, for the born, the right to
> live is the most fundamental right?  In our society, killing another
> human being is only sanctioned (1) in an execution after a lot of
> due process and only for someone convicted of murder (or rape?) or
> (2) in killing an enemy soldiers in a war.  I'm not saying whether
> these are right or wrong; I'm just observing that our society
> considers human life fairly precious (at least for those already
> born!) [...]
> 
> Perhaps you wish to confer a high value on the unborn's right to live
> without allowing it to be as high as the born's right to live.  There
> is some justification in that -- most prolifer's would grant the right
> to an abortion if the mother-to-be's life is threatened.  (Fortunately,
> medicine has advanced to the point that a tubular pregnancy is almost
> the only case of this.)
> 
> However, you want to place a lower value than that...  Let me end
> with this:  What value do you think should be placed on the life
> of the unborn?  [....]

I think I'm going to enjoy arguing with you, Liz.  You are one of the few
pro-choicers I've argued with who are honest or intellectual enough to
avoid oversimplifying the issue.  You use caveats, such as "In our society."
Good.  That's where I'll start.

"Our society" is not monolithic.  For example, a little thought will turn up
many other examples of where it might be appropriate to kill, both in what
you think of as mainstream culture and various cultures with smaller
representations.  Nor is our society static.  It can and does change in many
directions.

Other societies have incorporated abortion and infanticide into their normal
practices.  I could even make an argument for naturally occurring abortion
and infanticide in animals as an adaptive evolutionary strategy.  Thus, we
cannot just rule out abortion or infanticide as being bad or undesirable.

What humans allow each other to kill (people, animals, infants, fetuses)
is strongly correllated with who has a special interest in the subject
killed.  For example, kill an adult and friends and relatives may take revenge
because that adult could have enhanced their genetic fitness by bearing
more relatives, providing income with which to raise relatives, provided
defense for relatives, etc.  Kill a sacred cow, and you are taking a major
source of food and fuel from somebody.  The examples are endless.  How does
this apply then to abortion and infanticide?

The only people with a special interest in infants and the unborn are the
parents and other relatives.  If assaulting a pregnant woman causes loss of
the fetus, then the parents and relatives are deprived of offspring that
they might desire.  But if they don't desire a child, because they are too
poor, it's the wrong sex, or it's abnormal, or it will make it difficult
for a woman to marry later after she already has a child, then the fetus
or newborn represents a detriment to the woman's genetic fitness.  If you
look at abortion and infanticide practices in many cultures, they correspond
to these interpretations.

Thus I support abortion as an option of the parents, unless the embryo/fetus/
newborn can be adopted immediately.  Examples:
1)  Embryo/fetus can be transferred to host mother, or if none is available
    may be aborted.
2)  "Normal" viable newborn/premie may be adopted: if not, may be euthanized.
3)  Abnormals may be aborted or euthanized until shortly after birth, or
    adopted.
I think that this position allows maximal choice and recognition of the
reproductive decisions that people want and need to make.  Essentially, there
would be a presumption of humanity for the unborn unless the parents declare
the unborn to be unwanted.
-- 

Mike Huybensz				...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh