Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Perhaps my question isn't so simple Message-ID: <3264@alice.UUCP> Date: Sat, 12-Jan-85 01:23:54 EST Article-I.D.: alice.3264 Posted: Sat Jan 12 01:23:54 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 08:25:02 EST Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill Lines: 159 I asked what I thought was a simple question, but all I have gotten so far is answers to other questions. Maybe people aren't reading my question carefully. I will ask it again. There are many things that some people do as a matter of everyday routine that others think are horrible. Examples range from publishing erotic material to accepting blood transfusions to eating meat. For each of these activities, there is some collection of people who believe that this activity should be prohibited by law. In other words, all people should be prevented by force from engaging in this activity, regardless of whether they believe it right or wrong. I am trying to distinguish between two separate issues: the moral status of abortion ("Is abortion right or wrong?") and the moral status of legal prohibition against abortion ("Should people be forcibly prevented from having abortions, even if they think it is right?"). It seems to me that these issues have not been separated in most of the discussions I have seen so far on this newsgroup. In thinking about the difference between these two issues, I have been struck by the similarity between abortion and carnivorism. In both cases, there are some people who feel that the action in question is morally equivalent to murder, because it involves the desctruction of an organism that is conscious and can feel pain. In fact, some would go as far to say that a year-old cat, for instance, is at least as aware of its surroundings as a new-born baby. If virtually everyone felt that killing an animal was murder, I have no doubt that our legal system would reflect this nearly universal feeling. But a substantial number of people feel that killing an animal is not murder. Similarly, if virtually everyone felt that terminating a pregnancy was murder, I have no doubt that our legal system would reflect this nearly universal feeling. But a substantial number of people feel that abortion is not murder. So here is my question again: given that substantial numbers of people do not believe that abortion is murder, what argument can you give me that abortion should be illegal that I cannot also use as an argument that killing animals should be illegal? --------------------- I will now examine two non-answers I have seen recently. First, Gary Samuelson. His remarks are preceded by odd numbers of '>' characters; mine by even numbers: >>>> Can someone please explain to me why abortion should >>>> have a different legal status than killing animals? >>>Certainly. The fetus is not an animal. (If you really think >>>that it is a simple question, that is the simple answer you >>>deserve.) >>The trouble with the [above] answer is that it is >>merely your own opinion. Just as some people believe there is no >>real difference between humans before and after birth, others >>believe there is no real difference between humans and other animals. >What do you mean by "real difference"? In what way are the obvious >physical differences and (perhaps less obvious) mental differences >between humans and, for example, a snake, unreal? The obvious physical differences between humans and other animals are about as real as the obvious physical differences between humans at birth and humans, say, three months after conception. And yes, I did think it was a simple question until I saw the attempts of people to answer it. I'll make you a deal: if you stop sniping, I won't start. >I surmise, then, that you don't think anything should be illegal >unless there is universal agreement that it should be illegal; >is this correct? Or do you mean that the consensus need only >be close to universal? >If you really require universal agreement, then I submit that >there should be no laws at all; there is no need for a law >proscribing behavior that no one finds acceptable. >If you mean that laws should be based on a suitably large majority, >then it becomes theoretically moral and a practical possibility >simply to vote the annihilation of a sufficiently detested minority. In fact, I do not believe that the mere fact that nearly everyone feels a certain way gives them the right to enact their feelings into law, for exactly the reason you describe (among others). But we are talking about something even worse here: the prohibition of an action that many people feel should be legal. Gary then goes into a position statement that is too long to quote, but says essentially that a fetus has the right to live because it is alive and human and that animals are not. He defines a human as follows: 1. A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens. If this is in dispute, examine the genetic makeup. No, this is not in dispute. But don't you think it's rather racist of you to say that only members of one particular species have rights? After all, there was a time when it was believed that slaves were not people. After all, they have black skin, which makes them of a different species, doesn't it? What makes you so sure we aren't presently committing an atrocity far worse than slavery when we raise animals only so that we can kill them and eat them? Please do not misunderstand me. I am NOT arguing for enforced vegetarianism. What I am doing is arguing that if you claim that abortion should be prohibited as a matter of law, then as far as I can see I can frame a similar argument that killing animals should also be prohibited as a matter of law. I do not see any difference between the two arguments, and it is exactly this difference that I am trying to find someone to point out. The second non-answer to my question comes from Alana Hommel: > ... it is not a matter of opinion whether >the fetus is human/alive. A 10 week old's heart beats, its brain waves, >and it does its deep knee bends each morning. Science says this, with >its fetalscopes, EEGs, and mother's tummys. A cow's heart beats, and its brain waves too, yet it is legal to kill cows. You are arguing that there is a difference TO YOU, but I am not trying to dispute that. > ... Is there a question in there someplace? >I am not carrying a kitten, cow, or pig. I am carrying a human being. >It is not customary to eat human beings. Eating animal flesh does >not need to be justified. You mean that eating animal flesh does not need to be justified TO YOU. But to some people, it has the same moral status as cannibalism. Yet I don't hear anyone saying that eating animal flesh should be outlawed because some people think it is terrible. Why, then, are so many people saying that abortion should be outlawed because they don't like it? Could it be that they can't see that other people don't all think the same way they do? --------------------------------------------- This discussion has gone on long enough. I am not interested in getting into a debate with each of you out there as to where abortion fits into your own moral scheme. I have learned that it is a waste of time to try to debate religious issues: people have usually decided before entering such a debate that they will not allow their opinions to change no matter what arguments are advanced. I simply want to know how people who think that their particular views about abortion should be written into law can avoid concluding that the analagous views about carnivorism should not also become law.