Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!parcvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp1!johnston
From: johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Animals and people, which feels what.
Message-ID: <171@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 11:57:10 EST
Article-I.D.: spp1.171
Posted: Mon Mar  4 11:57:10 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 10:47:41 EST
References: <1115@hcrvx1.UUCP> <166@spp1.UUCP> <693@whuxlm.UUCP>
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 82

> > 
> > > From what I can tell about pre-babies, they don't see time as a "human"
> > > would.  
> > 
> > Isn't this the basic premise upon which all types of rasiscm is found. The
> > thought that others do not "measure up" to what is norm. 
> 
> No.  The basic premise of racism is that certain human beings may properly be
> treated differently because of their race.  The original author made no
> mention of race, and probably means his/her observation to apply to babies
> (or "pre-babies") of all races, including his/her own.
> 
> This is a cheap debating tactic.  Take something you don't like, such as
> abortion,  ask if it isn't the same as something most people dislike,
> such as racism, and you have perpetrated a nice, cheap ad-hominem attack
> under the guise of righteousness.

Follow the point this time. A premise of a philosophy is not the same as
the philosophy. The premise of racism is still the idea that one group
does not measure up. Racism then applies this to races as the groups
involved. I think that showing the similarities between an idea and one 
that people dislike is very legitimate. People have always been able to
rationalize their actions by convincing themselves it's something
acceptable. If it's possible to wake them up to what is really taking
place, at the least they're more informed.

> > > They have no notions about it other than the here and now.  All
> > > I know is that some time after birth, they develop a sense of time, and
> > > an understanding of their future.  Birth is the latest point where we can
> > > recognize that that sense is lacking.  So, I have no trouble with allowing
> > > abortions of pre-babies.
> > 
> > Do you believe that, before a child utters a word, he has no concept of
> > words? Do you think that a neon sign lights up upon each stage of
> > development? Do you think there is any possiblity that a child may have
> > developed a sense of time and an understanding of future in a way that no
> > words could express? And if there were words, what with his immature vocal
> > capabilities and irregular body movements, would his inability to
> > express the concept seal his doom.
> > 
> The original author is talking about "pre-babies" -- i.e. fetuses.  You
> give an answer that refers to children.  Your arguments fail to address
> his/her assertions.
> > 
> > >                               Tracy Tims    ihnp4!utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy

My arguments were meant to apply to all ..... I'm guess I'm stuck. If
someone could come up with a phrase to apply to members of the species
ho....Looks like I'm stuck again. In times past I could have used children
to apply to MY idea of any human from the point of conception onward which
is the target group for my arguments which still apply since even children
after birth cannot express an understanding of the future though they may
have one. But the definitions these days are muddled.

> > 
> > You use phrases such as "From what I can tell..." and "All I know is..."
> > implying views from your limited perception. Easy, we all have limited
> > perceptions. That's why conscientious hunters don't shoot at moving bushes.
> > You also said ".. sometime after birth..." implying uncertainties.
> > 
> > From the midst of all this misgiving, You see nothing wrong with abortion.
> > But if your perceptions are wrong, (we all must face that possibility),
> > you would be inflicting pain, an atrocity from your points previous.
> > 
> > 	Let's be sure.    Mike Johnston
> 
> Do you mean that, if it could somehow be shown that fetuses feel no pain
> (mental or physical) during abortions, that you would sanction them?  That
> if we developed an abortion method that involved giving the fetus an injected
> overdose of downers before its removal from the mother's body, you would
> then feel allright about them?  If so, then are you just arguing that abortion
> technology is the only problem?  
> 
> Mike Gray, BTL, WH

I was replying to someone who said that the could not see inflicting pain
needlessly on an individual who has awareness. I was pointing out in
conclusion that unless we we're absolutely sure that a fetus does not have
this awareness, then this "to be avoided" idea of inflicting pain would
happen anyway.

		Mike Johnston