From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, religion
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:53:53 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>
>> [Do you claim that any fetus is human in the same sense as I?]
>Yes.
>>Pro-life groups wish to ban the "morning after" pill.  Do you?
>Yes.

More thought-experiments later...

>>I contend that the only position that can consistently claim that a
>>fertilized egg is an unborn person, with the same right to live that I
>>have, is a religious one:  that the act of conception creates a soul...
>>
>> [If you disagree] please explain it to me.
>
>...
>My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with the notion
>of sin, a soul, an after-life, or God.
>...

Your next paragraph contains the crux of your argument, and it's where I
believe the flaw lies.  I'll quote it and respond to it after I comment
on some other things.

>I am against abortion because the development of an adult human being
>is a gradual process and there is no meaningful transitions ...
> [discussion of killing babies during labor, killing two-year-olds,
>  killing "unproductive members of society simply for personal or
>  societal convenience"]

If you want to believe a slippery-slope argument, I believe I will be
unable to change your mind.

However, I am not talking about killing children or retarded adults.
I am talking about killing and removing a fetus from a woman's body.
I don't want to talk about societal changes brought about by legal
abortion--you clearly think that Roe v Wade has had a hand in the
Collapse of our Moral Fiber &c.;  I think otherwise, and arguing that
point will be rather tedious.  Can we confine this discussion to
whether or not a woman should have the right to have an abortion?

>As to the rights of the mother, I am not unmindful of these, but what do
>we say about the mother, or parents who neglect their infant?  It is
>child abuse.  If the infant dies due to neglect, it is manslaughter or
>even murder.  We have no problem saying the mother has responsibilities
>after her child is born, why not before?

Circular logic.  I haven't granted your point that a fetus is human in
the same sense as abused/neglected children.

>[We tell women what drugs they can and can't put into their bodies;
> we tell women they can't perform sex acts with their bodies if it's
> for money;  why should abortion be special?]

Drugs are a special case, where utilitarian interests have overridden
what must be considered, in the final analysis, this fundamental right
to do with one's body what one will.  Prostitution, too, pretty much.
Let me plead the fifth on these two violations of that right, and still
claim that the right is a fundamental one that shouldn't be stepped on
without careful consideration.

If my apparent hypocrisy offends you, I'll be happy to explain my
reasoning, but, again, I don't think this is a fruitful direction to
take a discussion.

>It is said that it is her life, and the decision affects only her, so
>the decision should be made by her alone.  Ignoring the child for the
>moment, what about the father?  It is his child too.  It certainly
>affects him.  What about grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and so
>on.  Abortion affects far more than just the mother.

Abortion affects the mother principally.  She is the one whose body is
being used, and she is affected _vastly_ more than anyone else involved.
Fathers, excuse my prosaicity, but your contribution to your children
before their birth was a microscopic cell.

Do you realize, here, that you are arguing that aunts and uncles should
have an impact on an abortion decision?  That a woman should say to
herself, "I don't want the child, but Aunt Bev does, so I should have
it"?  Does this not strike you as ludicrous?

>It is said that we have no right to force our morality on others.  I'm
>not doing that, and wouldn't if I could.  And I don't think this is any
>business of the federal government's either way.  I think this should
>be decided by the vote, state by state.

Federal or confederal, it's still a violation of womens' rights...

> [We forced our morality on Ted Bundy, and on parents who abuse their
>  children, so the "don't force morality on people" principle is void.]

Again, circular reasoning;  we do not (or should not) tell people what
to do with their _own_ bodies.  Your hidden assumption here is, again,
that the fetus is human.  By assuming that, you can casually blur the
distinction between Ted Bundy murdering people and a woman having an
abortion.

>People bring up the case of rape and incest.  I find this irrelevant. 
>Clearly, this doesn't change what abortion is, or what it is that is
>being aborted.
>
>I realize my position is extreme.  I understand that many, perhaps most
>fertilized eggs end in miscarriage.  I doubt we should go to any special
>effort to save these even if we could.  I have trouble getting very worked
>up over the use of the IUD or in characterizing it's users and other people
>guilty of killing fertilized eggs as murderers.  I could be convinced it
>isn't if someone can make the proper case and answer my objections.
>
>The question of abortion deserves better, more
>serious discussion than the ad hominem and condescension that has
>characterized this debate so far.

Incidentally, I was just thinking the other day that, to my great
surprise, I was actually working over my position on abortion because 
of some of the things said in this group.  I figured it would just be
a big flamewar, but there's actually intelligent discussion to be
found.  (I don't get t.a, only crossposts to a.rush-limbaugh, by the
way...)

>I obviously can't stop people from responding, but if you want to ask me
>questions or want to debate abortion with me, please take it to email. 

Under the general rule of "I find this interesting;  maybe someone else
will too," I respectfully decline.


Here is the paragraph I referred to earlier:

>Those who favor legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life
>starts or science can't tell us when human life or personhood begins.
>This statement can only be made based on (at least) a quasi-religious
>belief in some extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life
>(personhood).  The biological facts are not in question (at least, not
>this century), and these, it seems to me, are the only sound basis for
>deciding what is and isn't human life (a person).

Your claim is that the "biological facts...are the only sound basis for
deciding what is and isn't human life."  I deduce that "biological facts"
here refers to things like the fertilization of the egg, DNA, and so on.
Let me split this into two parts:  (1) that science tells us what is and
what is not human;  (2) that science points to the moment of conception.

The problem is (1)--and without (1), (2) is moot.

You are looking for an answer to an ethical and philosophical question,
namely "what is the property that makes you and I human?"  Science
cannot answer such questions.  Metaphysics is not physics.  We can see,
with lots of high-tech equipment, exactly what occurs at the moment of
conception;  we can figure out molecular structures of acids;  we can
give names to self-replicating structures within cells or whatever.
But none of that brings us even one step closer to answering that
question.  It is all completely irrelevant.

You have gone looking for a human-defining property that makes abortion
the equivalent of murder.  Twentieth-century biology mutely offers a
documentary of the human reproductive cycle.  You've picked one point in
that documentary, conception, and made that your property.  But your
selection is completely arbitrary.

How about "first moment at which the fetus' brain waves can be picked up
with an EEG"?  That's just as arbitrary, but it even makes more sense
(at least to me).  How about "first moment at which nerves carry
sensations to the brain"?  How about "moment when the brain weighs more
than a Senegal chameleon's"?  These are all biological facts.

Biology is a tool with which we can more knowledgably decide this
question.  Any biologist should tell you that the science is not what
you would have me believe:  an answer in itself.


>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
>uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner

(Deer are for...est creatures.  Dinner is for dinner.)
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "The woman hung out a sign that said 'baby welcome' when she had sex."
   - krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)