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