From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 21:00:41 GMT

In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>[Sorry about the bogus postings I made earlier today. This one ought
>to go through correctly.]
> 
>In <11DEC92.05351754@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>In <9DEC92.21535269@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>> 
> 
>[This was getting a bit long, so I've trimmed everything except
>the sections that I thought were most important. Let me know
>if I deleted any points that you think I should have addressed.]
> 
>Throughout our recent exchanges, I've been trying to get an
>answer to a single question. It's a fairly complicated question,
>though, and I don't think that I've done a good job of
>communicating my intent to you.
> 
>I'm going to try to come at it from a different angle: The word 
>"person" means, basically, "that which it is wrong to kill". 
>Different people have different ideas as to what is a "person"
>and what isn't. Some religions teach that animals have souls,
>and that they are therefore "people".

That is an interesting definition.  I have never heard it put that way before.
(This is not a flame of any kind.  Just a comment)

>My point is that when you say "It's wrong to kill a zygote
>because it's a person", all you're really saying is "It's
>wrong to kill a zygote because it's wrong to kill a zygote."
>What I've been trying to do is to get you to expand on that.
>_Why_ is a zygote a person? What criteria do _you_, _yourself_ 
>use to tell whether it is wrong to kill something or not?

Except, I wasn't defining "person" as "that which it is wrong to kill".  I was 
(perhaps incorrectly) using person synonomously with human being.

>>>[...]
>>> 
>>>Now, suppose that your law is passed, and you're confronted by a 
>>>14-year-old rape victim who asks why you think that this law is "good", 
>>>when you know that it causes far more misery than happiness: 
> 
>>Back to the subjective good and bad again?  I never said either was "good" or
>>"bad".  As for more misery than happiness, how are you rating "more".  Are you
>>saying that the 14 year old girl will be miserable her whole life, and never
>>experience happiness again?  Are you saying that her period of misery will be
>>greater that the accumulated happiness the child will experience in its whole
>>life, added to any happiness that the mother gets from the child (Yes, it is 
>>possible for rape victims to love their children, and to be made happy by 
>>them)
> 
>Do you really believe this?

Yes, I do.  Are you going to tell me that all rape victims have abortions?  If 
not, are you saying that the ones who don't always hate the child?  I submit 
that is is possible for someone to love such a child.


>Suppose that the 14-year-old girl turns out not to be pregnant after
>all. By the argument you've just given, we would be justified in
>forcing her to be artificially inseminated against her will. [We
>could anesthetize her while we did it, so it wouldn't seem like
>a violation.] She might have to drop out of school, and sacrifice
>some of her potential future happiness, but it's not like she'll never
>be happy again. And the eventual child will presumably be grateful 
>to us.

This is only true when you are going by your reasoning that the purpose of law 
is to achieve maximum happiness.  

>>>[...]
>>>I'm going to try asking this again: Do you think that the level
>>>of happiness in society will be greater if abortion is banned? 
> 
>>If such a thing as the level of happiness in a society could be measured, 
>>then...
>>Absolutely.  Even people who get abortions are not happy about it.  I imagine 
>>that most of them are unhappy about the fact that they need one.  If abortion 
>>was illegal, these people would still be unhappy, but the pro-lifers would no
>>longer be unhappy.  Then add in any happiness that the children may experience 
>>at being alive.
> 
>This argument is even weaker than the first one.
> 
>I'll grant that there's room to argue about how to measure the level
>of happiness in society, but you've made some singularly bad
>estimates.  You're comparing "People who want abortions, and 
>receive them" with "People who want abortions, and are forbidden
>from having them". OK, both groups of people are unhappy. But do 
>you think that they're _equally_ unhappy? That seems rather
>improbable.
> 
>And, of course, I'm still a bit hazy on the difference between
>the "future happiness" of a zygote, and the "future happiness"
>of an unfertilized egg. 

An unfertalized egg, on it's own, left in it's environment, will not grow into 
a human adult.  A fertalized egg will.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion