Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :-> Message-ID: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 21:32:10 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.789 Posted: Tue Jul 9 21:32:10 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Jul-85 19:17:10 EDT Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 46 In my view there are two crucial issues in the abortion debate; I intend to discuss one of them. The one I will NOT discuss right now is this "pro-choice" argument as stated by a "pro-life"r: > (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and > therefore it's OK to kill it (analogue to property rights) I have discussed this before; my view, stated without repeating my argument, is that argument (a) is valid only in rape cases. What I want to do is advocate an answer to the even more controversial question "when, or under what conditions, in the development of an individual of the species Homo sapiens, does it become a proper object of concern or protection (and how much and what sort of concern and protection)?" This question is deliberately phrased to go right to the heart of the issue; questions about what constitutes "humanity" or "life" are avoided AS THEY ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE ISSUES. The question is not meant to exclude the (important) possibility of multi-part answers such as "type of protection 1 becomes appropriate at time a, while type of protection 2 becomes so at time b". Nor is it meant to exclude the (in my view unimportant) possibility of person-relative answers according to which it depends on one's tastes. (For those who insist on such an approach, think of the question as asking about YOUR concern and protection -- AND MINE, if you want to change my mind!) This question is important regardless of whether argument (a) is correct. Some abortions result in a live fetus/infant, which is then allowed to die in some cases when it would be technically possible to maintain it. If fetuses of that stage of development are (generally) proper objects of concern or protection (as I would argue), it may be that doctors or hospitals should save them or even that they should be required by law to do so. Also, even if (as per (a)) one has a *right* to "expel a trespasser", the individual woman might want to consider my question. This is getting long, so I'll give my answer now and save the reasons for later. As far as depriving it of life, an individual H. sapiens merits comparable concern and protection to that given adults, AS SOON AS IT BECOMES SENTIENT (i.e. capable of an experience of any sort (sight, touch, pain, etc.)) if it can be expected to live to be a normal adult. ("Normal" in any sense that is considered ethically relevant to the concern and protection for adults -- an issue I would like to beg by simply assuming that I can here apply whatever the right view is there.) OK netland, you can flame away now. --Paul V Torek