Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa
From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose life anyway?
Message-ID: <294@azure.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:01:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: azure.294
Posted: Wed Jun 26 05:01:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 08:19:55 EDT
References: <545@bgsuvax.UUCP> <239@azure.UUCP> <867@bunker.UUCP> <259@azure.UUCP> <524@bunkerb.UUCP> <284@azure.UUCP> <879@bunker.UUCP>
Reply-To: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 219
Summary: 

In article <879@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>> >So the fact that the fetus can't defend itself justifies killing it?
>
>> *SIGH*  I wish people would pay attention to the topic being discussed instead
>> of taking a single posting as is.  If you had bothered to pay attention you
>> would have seen that we were discussing the relevancy of the question,
>> "What if you had been aborted?".
>
>I don't know about you, but I was discussing the morality of abortion.
>The question you quote was brought up (not by me, but that's not particularly
>relevant) by someone to suggest, I think, that our concepts of rights
>should by symmetrical.  

It is difficult to keep track of a discussion on the net, so it is natural
for the subject to drift from it's original course.  I may have drifted a 
little in my postings, but I was trying to stop someone else from using my
posting in a context for which it was never meant.

I can hear the crowd crying now: "But what you say hear does have something
to do with your attitudes concerning other matters".  WRONG!  It is relevant to
my personal philosophical beliefs which approach every, EVERY problem on a
case by case basis.  Just because I say that argument X can be used in 
situation A, does not mean that it can be used in situation B (even if A and
B are closely related).

>"How would you like it if someone did that to
>you?" is a common, and I think a valid, question to ask in determining
>the morality of a given action.

There is an important point I think your missing and that I'm striving to get
across.  You can ask ME that question concerning moral problems BEFORE I ever
face them.  However, you cannot ask them of a fetus (if you could then a lot
of problems associated with abortion could be answered).  

>
>> I was trying to point out that the question
>> was pointless for the very reasons I have so far given.  They in no way relate
>> to whether it is right to "kill" the fetus but they do refer to what one
>> must consider when deciding on ones position concerning the "killing" of
>> the fetus (ie does the possibility of you being aborted have any relevancy
>> to the question at hand or does it just cloud the issue).
>
>Let me try to understand:  Your reasons do not relate to whether
>abortion is right, but do relate to deciding whether abortion is
>right.  OK, I can accept that.  But your reasons are assertions
>unto themselves, and lead to certain conclusions, which I have
>shown and you have not denied.

That's because I cannot deny them (please read on before you flame on this
point).

>
>I notice that you consistently quote terms such as "life" and "kill"
>in reference to a fetus.  Is this because you don't think that the
>fetus is really alive, and therefore technically can't be killed?
>If so, say so openly, and supply some substantiation.  If not, leave
>them out -- they are clouding the issue.

Fact is, I'm undecided on the matter.  Both(all?) sides in my view have
equally valid viewpoints which must be taken into consideration.  Until
I can come to some stand on this, I will continue to use the quoted terms
because 1) "kill" takes less typing then "remove that which makes
something/someone bioligically/mentally/spiritually alive" and 2) because
if I just say "kill" without the quotes, people will assume I am in the
anit-abortion camp.

>
>> >Or, to look at the other side of the same coin, if you were *not*
>> >able to pass laws to prevent your own murder (e.g., you live in a
>> >totalitarian state where certain classes of individuals may be legally
>> >killed), then it would not be wrong to kill you?
>> 
>> Again, there is a difference.  Before I am born not only do I not have the
>> power to hinder or encourage such a law but I would have no way of conceiving
>> of hindering/encouraging this law since the very concept of law is totally
>> foreign to my thought processes (limited though they be (when I'm a fetus,
>> not now :-))).
>
>:-# <-- someone biting his tongue.
>
>So it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of anyone who
>does not understand his or her rights; indeed, if one does not
>understand one's rights, those rights do not even exist.  It's
>OK to kill someone who doesn't understand what being killed is.
>I suppose it is also OK to steal from someone who doesn't understand
>that he or she is being swindled (and some people think *my* ideas
>are dangerous).

Please, instead of arguing against each individual point I make, look at them
in the context of my full argument.  Latter on in the quoted article I address
this very issue (read on and I will do so again).

>
>> Given that a fetus has a very limited range of sensory 
>> inputs...
>
>Sorry, not given.  There's not much for the fetus to see, but
>the sense of hearing, for example, works just fine.

okay, pardon my use of the "given".  

By limited I mean not fully up to par with "normal" sensory inputs.

>
>> (which it might not even notice since it has never been in a
>> situation in which those inputs didn't exist (you never notice something
>> until it's gone))
>
>One is *apt* not to notice something until it's gone.  It is false
>to say that one *never* notices something until it's gone
>(I thought you didn't believe in any absolutes :-).  To continue
>the example of hearing, the sounds which the fetus can hear are
>certainly not constant; you have no basis for claiming that the
>fetus doesn't notice the sounds.

Maybe the fetus does notice the sounds, but there is a difference between
noticing and understanding (a difference I consider important in all matters,
not just abortion).  But this is quickly dropping into a very deep philosophical
discussion into what constitutes life (if you wish it to turn to that, I'm
willing).

>
>> and assuming that it even has the ability to process
>> that data, the questions of law, morality, etc., are totally
>> unimportant to it.

addendum:  Please notice that I'm saying that it is unimportant to the fetus.
           I said nothing about it's importance to others.

>
>> >Does your logic apply to my 2 1/2 year old daughter?...
>
>> Here we do get into a sticky point.  A very young child (1-3 years say) might
>> have as limited a conception of law, morality, death, etc., as the fetus,
>> so by my reasoning it might seem that the life of a child is no different
>> then the "life" of a fetus.  And you would probably be right in drawing that
>> conclusion.
>
>It's only sticky because to be consistent you have to conclude what
>follows.  That conclusion apparently sticks in your craw a little,
>so to speak, so I am not surprised that you hedged a little in
>answering the question.  (I refer to your use of the words "might"
>and "probably."

I use "might" and "probably" whenever I try to apply general principles to
specific situations.  Because, they "might" not always apply and they
"probably" need to modified to fit the situation.

>
>What it amounts to is that you don't think a child under 3 has any
>more right to live than the fetus, whom you don't think has any right
>to live.

Grrrr.  Please read my statements in the full context of my argument, not
individually.  (see below).

>
>> However, any moral/philosophical principle I follow is never graven in stone.
>
>That statement is self-contradictory.  You have taken as an absolute
>principle the position that no (other) principle is absolute.

I know it's self-contradictory but so what?  It works for me.  (Maybe that
sounds a little conceited but if I were to follow this point up, I would 
quickly fill net.abortion with material that has absolutely [:-)] nothing
to do with abortion)

>
>> I approach things basically on a case by case basis, using the above mentioned
>> moral principles as guidelines in which to work.  I *DO NOT* consider them
>> to be absolute (I have my doubts about whether there is anything that is
>> absolute).

NOTE:  THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN MY PREVIOUS POSTING.  IF YOU HAD
READ IT CAREFULLY, YOU WOULD SEE THAT MY STATEMENTS DO NOT IMPLY SOME OF THE
THINGS YOU SAY THEY DO.

>
>OK, let's take a case -- I conclude from your postings that you think
>it would be morally acceptable to kill my daughter, if it suited you
>to do so. 

I am not saying "if it suites me, then I can do what I feel is morally right".
I am saying "weighing each individual case according to it's merits and being
guided by flexible moral principles, if the analysis shows that an action is 
nescessary, then that morally justified."  (note that this is a general 
principle applying to more then just abortion).

> Perhaps you would not do so, but someone else might be
>convinced (possibly being predisposed to do so) that you are right
>and kill my daughter, for whatever reason.  You therefore present
>a real, if not imminent, danger to my daughter, whom I desire to
>protect.  Would it be wrong for me to kill you to remove that danger?
>If so, why?

I cannot answer this question because it is to ambiguous.  I would have to
know the facts about the situation that might lead up to either me or someone
else desiring the death of your daughter.  If it was someone else, then I would
have to use whatever information I have and then make a decision using my
personal, *flexible* moral principles when deciding whether to inhibit his
actions.  Also, In my eyes (or someone elses) it "might" be wrong for you
to protect your daughter, but in yours it "might" be right to do so.  Again,
it comes down to a situation of two (or more) moral principles colliding on
an issue that seems to present no compromise.  What to do in this situation?
I don't know.  We would probably have to wing it.

>
>I realize that we have wandered off the topic of abortion, but
>I feel that it is important to show the logical consequences of
>a position.  And Chris's reasoning logically leads to the above
>scenario.

Sorry, it does in certain special case, but not in all cases.

>
>Gary Samuelson


Chris Andersen