Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcrvx1!tracy
From: tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Animals and people, which feels what.
Message-ID: <1131@hcrvx1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 19:04:21 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx1.1131
Posted: Thu Feb 28 19:04:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 03:14:21 EST
References: <1115@hcrvx1.UUCP> <166@spp1.UUCP>
Organization: Human Computing Resources Corp
Lines: 71

Me (Tracy, original article):

> From what I can tell about pre-babies, they don't see time as a "human"
> would.  

Mike Johnston:

Isn't this the basic premise upon which all types of rasiscm is found. The
thought that others do not "measure up" to what is norm. You correctly
quoted the word human since biologically it is one as we are.

    My response:

    No, this has nothing to do with norms.  It has to do with what perceptions
    and feelings various things are capable of.  The only thing I can think
    of that distinguishes me from a rock (in that I have no problem smashing
    a rock whereas I don't want to smash myself) is that I would object to
    smashing myself, and the rock wouldn't.

    Racism is the application of distinctions (which may also be inaccurate)
    that exist between groups of people to individuals themselves.  That is,
    notions of race (which may or may not be true to fact) are applied to
    individuals (and there they are certainly not true to fact) to justify
    discrimination.  The discrimination is not a product of the justification,
    it is instead a product of fear and hate; and the justification is used to
    rationalize the fear and hate.  I am certainly not doing any of this.

    The difference between my views of babies and animals and racism is that
    the former is an attempt to understand existent differences and the latter
    is an attempt to rationalize unjust feelings and actions.  Racists are
    rarely open minded.

> All I know is that some time after birth, they develop a sense of time, and
> an understanding of their future.  Birth is the latest point where we can
> recognize that that sense is lacking.  So, I have no trouble with allowing
> abortions of pre-babies.

Do you believe that, before a child utters a word, he has no concept of
words? Do you think that a neon sign lights up upon each stage of
development?...

    Yes, I believe that there is a point in the development of a child where
    he/she has no concept of words, and no concept of death.  I would place a
    lower bound on the age for abortion somewhere where we were sure there was
    no concept of death.  I don't think that a baby at birth has a concept of
    death.

You use phrases such as "From what I can tell..." and "All I know is..."
implying views from your limited perception. ...  conscientious hunters don't
shoot at moving bushes.

...But if your perceptions are wrong, (we all must face that possibility),
you would be inflicting pain, an atrocity from your points previous.

    First of all, inflicting pain is to be avoided, and not neccessarily at
    all costs.  I am sure enough that even if a first trimester fetus can feel
    pain that it cannot object to it's death.  That's why I think abortion
    should be completely legal.

    Secondly, I am certain about few things, yet I still make decisions and
    perform actions which depend on perceptions about which I am uncertain.  I
    will only claim open mindedness in the future.

    As I said above, I don't think that a baby at birth has a concept of death.
    I also don't think there is a high probability that I am wrong.  There are
    very few "facts" that I actually know, perhaps the only one is that "I am".
    Everything else "only apparently is".

                              Tracy Tims    ihnp4!utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy
   Human Computing Resources Corporation         utcsri!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy
 Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  416 922-1937          dciem!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy