Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Date: Thu,  7 Jan 1993 22:20:12 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
	<1992Dec30.030604.4935@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na

In article <1992Dec30.030604.4935@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Mary Otto writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.175438.25157@advtech.uswest.com>
steven@advtech.uswest.co
>m ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = Mary Otto:
>>> = Michael Loomis writes:
>>>> I still think the killing of human fetuses is a positive moral 
>>>> good on a planet overpopulated by homo sapiens.

>So, I responded, to provoke further discussions, the following question:
>>> If you feel that way about the value of humans, why don't you make
>>> your own abortion retro-active and commit suicide?

Ms. Otto is being rather dishonest here.  She meant her question to be a
quick put down and to stop further discussion.

>> Of course, Michael said human fetuses.  Not humans.  

>Human fetuses are by definition humans, i.e. members of the
>species Homo Sapiens. 
>>
>>Michael was speaking of *fetuses*, which are != all humans, as Otto
>>insinuated.

>Insinuated?  Well, actually, I was responding more to Michael's opinion
>that the world was overpopulated by homo sapiens.  (I didn't question
>what he meant by that, or whether he included a homo sapiens in the
>womb in his tally.  I assumed he meant those already born.)  In my
>opinion, someone who states that there are already too many people in
>the world (especially in December) sounds a lot like Ebeneezer Scrooge
>when he said "... best they should die and decrease the surplus population."
>In my opinion, his statement about overpopulation showed a disrespect
>for the value of human beings.

Let's leave aside for a second the question whether the world is
currently overpopulated.  There does exists some population lets say a
million billion people at which we could certainly say that
overpopulation exists.  Since human overpopulation is at least a
possibility, it cannot be said that the belief that the world is
overpopulated shows "disrepsect for the value of human beings".
 
>Further, in order to challenge this disrespect and the opinion that
>there were surplus humans on the planet, I asked him why he did not
>choose suicide.  I felt that the answer to the question would be quite
>revealing;  why would a man persist in continuing to live if he felt
>it were morally wrong?  How could a man justify his continued life
>without having to refute the statement that there were too many people?
>Perhaps more disturbingly, how would this man select which should live
>and which should die, starting with himself?  It is a fascinating
>question, and all based on his assertion that there is a population
>surplus and that addressing that surplus was a moral issue.

   Ms. Otto is guilty of the logical error of the fallacy of composition
in this paragraph.   While a three billion person suicide pact may do
the planet much good, the suicide of a single individual is meaningless.
 Thus, there is no contradiction between believing the world is
overpopulated and continuing to live according to what Ms. Otto feels is
morally correct.
    Even if Ms. Otto were not guilty of this logic error, Ms. Otto's
conception of the morally correct response to overpopulation is so
twisted that we have little reason to pay it much regard.  Possible
responses to human overpopulation that are far saner the suicide
required by Ms. Otto include:

1.  Advocating that people have smaller families, including an end to
the glamourazation of large families on television.
2.  Permitting abortion of unwanted children.
3.  Promotion of birth control
4.  Eliminating tax subsidization of large families, including
elimiation of the personal exemption from the United States income tax,
require families to pay part of the child's cost for schools, et cetera.
5.  If necessary, tax penalties for couples that have a third child.


>Perhaps a simple question is too deep for some people to grasp.

A simple question is not necesarily deep.  It may be just irrelevent.

>Not
>Michael, not Steve, not Doug.  Would any of you like to try again?
>I am really curious about this, and I feel that it has interesting
>ramifications for t.p.a, since we will treat animals no better than
>we treat each other.

    Ms. Otto is certainly correct that this discussion has ramifications
for talk.politics.animals.  Human overpopulation results in the
destruction of the environment in which animals live.  When a couple
produces a third child do they consider that that child will day require
a house in which to live?  For this house to be built some plot of land
must be change from having plants and animals on it to a house. Thus,
some animals die through a slow painful process of starvation, and some
animals are killed quickly through contact with a car or a trap. This is
but one way in which human overpopulation results in the death of
animals. Of course, people do not only need houses, but also need jobs
and material posessions.  By satisfying these needs we destroy yet more
of environment necessary for animals to live.

    Ms. Otto is again correct in her assertion that we will treat
animals no better than we treat each other.  How will treat each other
on a planet with too many people?  Economics has some suggestions about
the value of things in oversupply.

Michael Loomis
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54261 alt.dads-rights:3161