Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: A simple question
Message-ID: <649@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 14:59:20 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.649
Posted: Mon Jan  7 14:59:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:47:33 EST
References: <3229@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 113

> > = Gary Samuelson
> >>, > = Andrew Koenig

> >> 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?

> Your justification for treating abortion and capital punishment
> differently doesn't mean much unless you tell me just what
> different legal status should be applied to capital punishment
> and abortion, and why.

Abortion is the premature termination of a pregnancy, either resulting
in, or caused by, the death of that fetus.  Spontaneous abortion
is abortion caused by no deliberate act.  Therapeutic abortion,
which is what we are discussing here, is either the killing of
a fetus, which results the fetus being expelled, or the forcible
removal of the fetus, which results in the death of the fetus.

Capital punishment is the slaying of a person convicted of a
sufficiently heinous crime that the criminal has been judged to
have forfeited the right to life.

Unless you can explain what crime the fetus has committed, I fail
to see any similarity between the two.

> >Which brings up another problem with analogies.  Some people
> >would say, yes, killing fetuses and killing animals and killing
> >felons should all have the same legal status; they should all
> >be illegal.
> 
> In fact, I find [the above] paragraph the most convincing of all,
> except for the last five words.  In other words, I see no reason
> for any different legal treatment of killing animals, criminals,
> or fetuses.  But since there is far from universal agreement
> on any of these issues, I conclude they should all be legal.

(Obviously the above paragraph wasn't convincing at all, since
its purpose was to convince you that analogies could not really
prove anything.)

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.

> Since I know several people who think abortion should be illegal
> yet eat meat, I was wondering how they justified it.  I am still
> wondering.

I can respect someone who disagrees with my position.  I find it
difficult to respect someone who seems to pretend not to understand
it.  But maybe I did not make it as clear as I hoped.  I shall
try again.

1.  A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens.  If this is in
    dispute, examine the genetic makeup.

2.  Examining the genetic makeup will also show that an individual
    fetus has some genes in common with the mother, and some in
    common with the father.  It is therefore neither the mother
    nor the father, but a separate individual.

3.  All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right
    to live.  Other rights are subordinate to this one.

4.  Since the fetus is a human individual, it has the right to live,
    and, unless it is endangering the mother's life, its right to
    live supercedes the mother's rights.  (And since someone will
    no doubt accuse me of inconsistency -- without knowing me, of
    course -- let me add that if I thought that someone would die
    without my help, I would feel obligated to supply such help.
    Examples of cases where I have put this principle into practice
    are none of your business, but if you insist, I will supply
    them.)

The following statements are not related to abortion, but I have to
throw them in to show that they are not:

5.  Normal human beings value human life (specifically, their own)
    more than nonhuman life.  If this is not justifiable, then it
    becomes improper for humans to kill any other living thing,
    plant or animal, to sustain their own lives. 

6.  It is possible for humans to act is such a way that they forfeit
    their right to life.  (Taking someone else's life, or attempting
    to do so, are, in my opinion, examples of such action.)

Now, even if you do not agree with my position, I think you ought
to be able to understand it.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys