From: doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 19:41:07 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Nov9.051411.1643@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>  
hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.205649.9929@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu  
(Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
> >>The "value" of many things change (to individuals and
> >>society) depending on the *current* circumstances.  To lose a hundred
> >>dollars when I'm down and out is quite different that to lose that  
same
> >>$100 when I have the net worth of Ross Perot.  Thus the "value" is
> >>different.
> >
> >Hmm... over how much time do these "values" changes take place?  It's
> >been a few thousand years, yet theft and murder are still considered
> >as "wrong".  Why?  Perhaps because we *value* our lives (and those of
> >our fellow humans!) enough that we know we don't want to be constantly
> >fighting to keep our posessions and our lives safe.  Now, when you use
> >mere dollars to signify "value", you trivialize the real, deeper
> >meaning of the word.
> 
> You were the one arguing that "values" were *ABSOLUTE* and unchanging.
> I pointed out that not all were.  That theft and murder are still
> considered wrong just means that society *still* thinks it important.
> I implied no particular timescale for these changes.  That different
> values change at different rates doesn't surprise me either;  though
> you seem to imply that it is shocking news to you.  Using analogies
> is not an attempt to "trivialize" but an attempt (failed in your case
> apparently) to get a point across while bypassing your preconcieved
> notions about the world.
> 
> >>  And I'll admit that if the child was wanted then an miscarriage
> >>would be very stressful; but that doesn't imply that all or even most
> >>abortions are carried out under stressful conditions.  Women are  
capable
> >>of clear, logical, rational decisions.
> >Oh, you claim to *know* that the news of an unwanted pregnancy has no
> >affect on people *most* of the time?
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the *news* of an unwanted pregnancy  
is
> not stressful; just that woman can generally deal with that stress and
> still make rational decisions.  
> 
> >>>I'm not trying to get embroiled into a discussion of when "life"  
begins.
> >>>But if we, as a society, can mourn the loss of a *wanted* fetus at  
all, then
> >>>this means that "it" must have some inherent value to us.
> >>Yes, "it" had some inherent value to the potential parents.   
Unfortunately
> >>you've slipped up here and left the in English ambiguity:  I'll claim  
the only
> >>"it" with inherent value is the miscarried fetus.  This corresponds to  
the
> >>$100 that one loses when one is down and out.  The abortion  
corresponds to
> >>$100 when you've got billions.  Value is a measure of relative worth;  
the
> >>key is "relative".
> >Value is more than relative worth!  You seem to have this
> >pre-occupation with $$$ as the only thing of value.  I value my
> >children, and there's no amount of $$$ in the entire world that can
> >compare to this.  In the true sense of the word, "value" is much more  
than
> >relative worth.  Only material things have their value measured by
> >relative worth.
> 
> Not at all!  If I was all consumed in the quest for $$ I wouldn't be in
> the job I am.  Oh, I see you confuse the analogy with the "real thing".
> Silly me.  But I will reassert that value IS relative worth; don't know
> how else you'd define it.  That there are no absolute values (except to
> mathematicians :-) should be obvious to all.  Every person sets  
different
> relative values on everything.  The problem with people like you is that
> you want to set YOUR values as the absolute standards. 

Excuse me for butting in, but here lies the crux of the matter.  This kind  
of a statement sends chills down my spine.  To assert that there are no  
absolute values is a contradiction at best, and an excuse to commit all  
kinds of heinous acts at worst.  A contradiction, in that you're making an  
appeal to the existence of absolutes to advance your statement.  If there  
really were no such thing as absolutes, you would have no idea what  
relativity is since that is defined in juxtaposition to absolutes.   
Moreover, you are absolutely stating that all is relative.  Sorry, but you  
can't have it both ways!  Just like those idiotic bumper stickers that  
authoritatively enjoin us to "Question Authority."  But what really chills  
me is that Hitler's conscience must have allowed him to sleep at night  
with just such an argument, by dismissing all as relative.  Thus, the  
worth of a Jew was presumably less than that of an Aryan in his mind, so  
what he did was rational and justifiable.  Naturally, asking a Jew what he  
or she thought of that would have upset his twisted world view, so they  
had to be kept quiet.  In the same way, this vacuous "no absolute values"  
nonsense has permitted the astronomical extermination of unborn humans.   
If the statistics are right, a nurse friend has told me less than 2% of  
abortions are to save the life of the mother.  That leaves 98% as  
sacrifices on the alter of convenience to the gods of pleasure,  
self-centeredness and materialism.  There are indeed absolutes and the  
sanctity of life is one of them, whether or not you recongize that.  And I  
reject the pushing of your absolute values onto me, that all is relative.   
To get around the sanctity of human life, you half to do quite a bit of  
fancy fallacious footwork, and that's what is obvious to all

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism