Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: I was a teenaged pregancy Message-ID: <5879@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 10:51:37 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5879 Posted: Wed Sep 11 10:51:37 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 10:00:03 EDT References: <711@gitpyr.UUCP> <390@scirtp.UUCP> <5839@cbscc.UUCP> <740@gitpyr.UUCP> <5853@cbscc.UUCP> <749@gitpyr.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 166 In article <749@gitpyr.UUCP> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes: >In article <5853@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >>My point was that the circumstances that surround birth have no bering >>whatsoever on whether abortion is justified. If human life has any value >>the circumstances under which that life is born don't affect that value >>any more than the color of the child's skin. > >Human life has value, but a fetus is not a human life, it is the potential >of a human life. Why isn't it human life with potential? And why is that potential not important in considering whether or not we ought to be able to kill that life? >>In what sense would you never have existed? Abortion is not done on >>an non-existent human. > >Clashing definitions; I don't mean biological existance, I mean cognative >existance. OK. How do you define and measure cognitave existence so as to avoid committing what we would normally call murder of another human being? >>If we can kill people instantly and painlessly so that they "never knew what >>hit them", is the killing then justified? Your argument seemed to imply that >>since the fetus may not realize she is being killed, it is therefore >>acceptable to kill her. Why just the fetus? > >Poor analogy, being unaware does not make one non-cognizant. Why not? They seem to mean pretty much the same thing to me. What real difference does it make regarding the analogy? >>My position is that killing one's child, wheter born yet or not, is not >>and acceptable solution to the problems surrounding pregnancy. It certainly >>is not the only solution. > >Your solution is to force the mother to have a child. Bravo. Might I take >a guess at your social status? Middle-middle to upper class aye? Its not >an acceptable solution to you because it doesn't happen to be one of *YOUR* >problems. You can afford to raise a child under any condition or send your >daughter out of the country for an abortion. Don't you think this is a little ad hominem? My solution is what I said it is. Yes, I'm in favor of laws requiring people not to kill other people. Aren't you? Assuming that no one forced the mother to get pregnant, why is saying that she ought not to kill the child by abortion wrong? >If this were a perfect sociaty I would be the first person to sign the bill >to outlaw abortions, it is far from it however. If there were solutions >there that were almost as good there wouldn't be any abortions! The legality of abortion on demand is one big reason that alternatives to abortion are not more readily available. A perfect society wouldn't need any laws, would it? Arguing against a law because society isn't perfect seems a little silly to me. >>What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? >>Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? > >I proposed no line of demarcation. It certainly wouldn't be sentience.. >A case could be made for it being after birth. It would be completely >arbitrary. That is a big problem I have with much of the pro-choice argument. They tear down one set of criteria for a life/death dividing line and don't feel any obligation to provide a sound one of their own. Do you have a better, more consistent dividing line than conception? If so, demonstrate it. >What I was arguing is where it shouldn't be, at conception. That one celled >animal contains the genetic pattern of an individual, so do most of the cells >in your body...which leads to... The genetic pattern in the zygote contains that of *another* individual. The one in the body cell contains that of the individual to which the cell belongs. The zygote, barring interference, will naturally grow and mature as a human being. The body cell will not unless we impose an event upon it analogous to conception. How do you justify directly interfering in the life of the fetus and killing it and not also be providing justification for someone else to do the same with other humans based on the same general criteria? >>"Creating" a human being from a skin cell is still in the realm of science >>fiction. For all we know it may always be in that realm. I see no cumpulsion >>to base our ethics on the possibilities that we may dream up, even if I >>thought it would make a difference. When, and if, human clones become >>reality, we can deal with it. > >I'm quite sure you will be able to claim your moral code works under all >situations. I'm not going to patronize you with interludes about what >people like you thought of the idea of walking on the moon 20 years before it >happened. 4 years ago when I was in grammer school in "science" class we were >shown a biology film. It discussed such things as artificial insemination, >surrogate impregnation (transfering fertilized eggs), and cloning. Examples >of all 3 were shown. The first 2 in the cattle industry and the last on >salimanders. I'm not quite sure what to think of someone who doesn't have >a grammer school child's knowledge of the subject he makes sweeping statements >about.. I'm not saying that cloning isn't a possibiity. If it is, I don't think it makes any difference with regard to whether the fetus is a rightful human being. You seem to be arguing here, however, that just because some people disblieved things that have since become reality, then anyone who doubts that anything we may envision will come to pass is wrong. There are a lot of things that could prevent human cloning from becoming a reality. Things that may be unrelated to the technology itself (e.g. a war, funding shortage, other priorities, etc.). All I'm saying is that I don't feel the need to modify my ethics (even if I thought I had to, which I don't in this case) base on what *may* be possible. There is some point in discussing it, but the issue is academic until the event in question becomes reality. At any rate your suggestion that I should allow abortion now because cloning may be a possiblilty in the future seems as silly as telling a city planner that new roads should be imbedded with trolley tracks because it is possible to use trolley's in the future. Maybe we want to repeal part of the Constitution since it's possible that we will want to go back to owning slaves. This illustrates another problem I have with your examples. You seem to be using the principle that whatever is scientifically possible should be done and our ethics should bend to follow. Don't you think our ethics should have some say in what should be done? (e.g. What types of experiments should be performed on animals and humans.) Most people would say yes, except when they see implications for the abortion issue. Why? >>I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone >>as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you >>support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept >>of "social good"? > >Ok, you tell me how forcing women to have unwanted children and women >dying of improperly preformed abortions is a service to sociaty? I am not in favor of seeing any women die from any abortion. Your insinuation that that is the only concievable or acceptable alternative to legalized abortion on demand is fatuous. Why don't you answer my question instead of evading it? I honestly would like to tell me what "social good" really means. You imply that I should accept what that standard dictates with regard to abortion. Well, then expounding upon the meaning of that standard is the least you can do. >I've already said this a few times before, but here goes again: >The life of the living is more important then the potential life of the >non-existent. If you can make the abstraction that a fetus is human, even >though it has none of the features that we consider human, only the knowledge >that it will eventually have them, then the abstraction that an abortion is >just as though the woman hadn't gotten pregnant is equally as valid. If thats >the way you want to look at it, thats fine. What are the features you refer to? If you don't lay them out then you have little ground from which to criticize. >Nobody is forcing their OPINIONS on you. >It is you who is trying to force a VERY opinionated opinion on everyone else in >the world. Such intellectual vanity is amazing. If I want to kill my neighbor, have more than one wife, own slaves, or rob a bank? What if I see nothing wrong with doing some of these? Yes, we do force our "opinions" on those who think like this. If that is not "intelectual vanity" then explain to me the difference. If you are unwilling to lay out your criteria for what constitutes a rightful human being then you have little cause for calling others vain. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd