Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Perhaps my question isn't so simple Message-ID: <235@psivax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 15:50:12 EST Article-I.D.: psivax.235 Posted: Tue Jan 15 15:50:12 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 01:21:32 EST References: <3264@alice.UUCP> <662@bunker.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 59 Summary: In article <662@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > kjm writes: >> 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. > >> 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? > >So here is my argument, which you have already dismissed as a >non-answer: > >1. To kill a human being, who has not harmed or threatened to > harm another human being, is immoral and should be illegal. > Various legal terms exist to describe such killings: manslaughter > (voluntary and involuntary), murder of various degrees, > negligent homicide, perhaps others. I am not saying that > every harm or threat justifies lethal force in response, > but I am saying that nothing but harm or threat justifies > a lethal response. >2. The fact that such killing is immoral and ought to be illegal > is based on the humanity of the victim, not on the consciousness > or ability to detect pain. This is why you can't use this > argument to show that killing animals should be illegal. >3. Abortion is the killing of a human being who (generally) has > not harmed or threatened to harm another human being. I am > explicitly leaving out the case where the pregnancy is endangering > the mother's life; it is not generally the case. > >To refute the above argument, you need to show either that something >other than harm or threat to harm justifies the killing of a human >being, or that pregnancy in general causes sufficient harm or >threat of harm to justify killing of a human being, or that the >fetus is not a human being. > What this comes down to is what is meant by "human-being". You believe that humanity is acquired at the moment of conception. I believe that there is a gradual, step-by-step developement from an unfertilized ovum to an adult human being, at about 18 yrs past birth, and that there are no transitions that are sufficiently more significant than others to *require* a recognition of a change of status. Thus *any* splitting points must be *arbitrary*. Thus we are back to the original question, why should *your* dividing line be prefered to anyone elses. After all almost any argument which can be advanced for the "humanity" of a fertilized embryo can be applied equally well to an unfertilized ovum, which would make failure to become pregnant equivalent to murder! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen