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: Perhaps my question isn't so simple
Message-ID: <662@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 16:30:40 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.662
Posted: Mon Jan 14 16:30:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 04:44:59 EST
References: <3264@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 149

> 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.
> 
> 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.

You are misquoting most of the people who are against abortion.
Most people are against abortion because it is the destruction
of the life of a human being, not because it is the destruction
of the life of a conscious, pain detecting organism.

I, as a human being, value the lives of other human beings more
than the lives of non-human living things.  (This is not to say
that I do not value other living things at all, just that I
value human life more than non-human life.)  Don't you?  If
not, there is no point in proceeding.

> 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?

First, what does what substantial numbers of people believe or
disbelieve have to with what ought to be legal?  Aren't there
things which should be illegal because they are wrong, regardless
of their popularity?

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.

To use the above argument to outlaw the killing of animals, you
need to show that the animal(s) you have in mind are really human
beings, since the above argument explicitly and exclusively is
about human beings.  (I don't approve of wanton destruction of
other life forms, either; but that is not the subject of the
above argument.)

> 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?

I didn't say that.  I said that the members of the species homo
sapiens have certain rights simply by virtue of the fact that
they are members of that species.  I said nothing about the
existence of rights for other species, one way or the other.

> 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?

No.  By the way, do you know what color my skin is?  Who's being
racist?

> 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?

I repeat: what makes animals so special?  If raising animals
for food might be wrong, raising plants for food might be
wrong, also.  If you can take an argument against killing humans
and apply it to killing animals, then I will in turn apply it
to killing plants, at which point the only moral thing to do is
starve to death.

But to answer your question more directly, I have already stated
my preference for human life over non-human life.  I think it
can be taken as a given that each species prefers its own kind
of life to other kinds, and I see nothing wrong with that.

> 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.

Assuming you think that it should be illegal to kill a human being
that has neither harmed nor threatened to harm another human being,
what reasons do you have for thinking that?  Why don't those reasons
apply to the killing of animals (you admitted that you are not for
enforced vegetarianism)?  If you can figure out why the killing
of an adult human being differs from killing an animal (or a plant)
for food, then you ought to be able to figure out why the killing
of a substantially younger human being differs from killing an
animal or plant for food.

> Why, then, are so many people saying that abortion should be outlawed
> because they don't like it?

Another misquote.  Abortion should not be outlawed because some
people don't like it; it should be outlawed because it is the
destruction of an innocent human being.

> 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:

Religious issues??  I don't think I used a single religious argument.
In fact, I know of at least two firmly agnostic people on the net
who are against abortion.

> people have usually decided
> before entering such a debate that they will not allow their opinions
> to change no matter what arguments are advanced.

Speak for yourself.  Several of my opinions have been changed as
a result of netnews articles.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys