From: hippee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:13:11 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1993Jan24.140528.3259@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
> [reply to hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu,]
>  
  
> I have avoided getting into abortion debates on the net before because
> they always seemed more emotional than logical.  Hoping that things may
> be different here (and encouraged by what I have seen so far):
>  
I, who am also fearful at the feel of the knife on the neck, will take this
plunge into night with you. :)

>
> Life has a well-defined biological meaning meaning maintainence of
> homeostasis in an organism capable of reproduction.  It implies that
> sperm and ova are alive, as is the fertilized egg and the organism that
> develops from it, at all stages.  The objection against abortion can't
> be simply because live human cells are being killed, or the same
> objection could be met each time contraception is used, or indeed each
> time a woman menstruates.  It can't be because one is preventing or
> destroying a potential human for the same reasons -- the IUD prevents
> the fertilized ovum from implanting and therefore must have caused far
> more potential humans not to have developed than abortion.  I can't see
> that there is a great deal of difference between preventing a fertilized
> ovum from implanting, as opposed to removing it immediately after
> implantation or preventing the union of a sperm and ovum in the first
> place.
>  
From a strictly pragmatic point of view (a view which I see is not often liked
here), the issues involved in potentiality of life are pitted between the 
sure potential of the host (mother) and the unsure potential of the parasite
(fetus).  While the verbiage may be foul, the sense in which it is used is not
intended to be so.  In any runoff between actuality and potentiality, "a bird
in hand is better than two in the bush."

>
> Any logical objection to abortion must therefore, it seems to me, be
> based on qualities which the fetus holds or develops after conception.
> I see two candidates:  a soul and sentience.  Taking the latter first,
> killing a baby at 38 weeks gestation in the womb seems little different
> than killing one at birth, because both are sentient humans.  Assuming
> that the latter is wrong (as is generally held in our society, but not
> all societies), then at least late abortions would seem wrong as well.
> The question then is when sentience develops.  It cannot be any earlier
> than "quickening", when the nervous system first shows signs of
> function, at 18 to 20 weeks.  It is likely that the fetus has no
> self-awareness until much later, possibly until some time after birth.
>  

The position that you state is the one held by the majority ofcommon law 
writings on the subject.  It is also the basis for the trimester method that
was espoused in RvW.  As to the existence (or lack) of sentience, newer studies
have given some reason to question whether the fetus has sentience (the results
of which are inconclusive).  Much of the research concerns effects of pre-
maternal stresses (divorce, father's death, etc.) that the child might know
after birth.  The problems concern the reliability of post-natal recollection 
of a pre-natal occurence. 

>
> The bigger problem for the sentience argument is the one that started
> this thread: if it is the possession of sentience by the victim that
> makes killing murder, killing a fetus is not as bad as killing an adult
> animal.  In fact, at an early enough point in fetal development, it is
> no worse than pulling a carrot.
>  
> Now for the argument concerning the soul:  if one believes that a soul
> enters the body at some time, thereby making the body a person, then the
> argument could be made that it is wrong to deprive a soul of its body,
> and that abortion is therefore murder from the time of entry of the
> soul.  Unfortunately, since the soul is a supernatural concept, there is
> nothing which natural science can tell us about it, much less prove its
> existence.  If you believe in the existence of a soul (I don't), then
> you will have to rely on religious dogma to tell you when it enters the
> body and thus at what point abortion becomes immoral, or rather, taboo.
> 

As to the argument for or against a soul.  It remains a tenuous position to 
hold.  One doesn't know where it is or isn't, assuming that each person has the
same amount.  I would probably apply the infamous razor to the concept.
My belief in abortion stems from a belief that any discussion of parasite
behavior (to be moral) must have the approval of the host.  If it does not,
there should be no questioning when the host attempts to remove the parasite by
any means at their disposal.

The only question for me concerns the apparent choice which one has when one
becomes "infected" with this particular parasite.  I would, however, beg to 
remind anyone who would challenge on these grounds that would remove the lice
from their hair, the worms from their dogs, and the ticks from their cat. 
These parasites take much less from the host than a human child and with
conciderably much less danger (especially given the outrageous death rates of
pregnancy in nature as compared to the unmedicated death rates of ticks and 
their ilk).

While this position appears quite harsh, it seems to be the only one that can
safely be assumed without making assumptions that are tenuous.

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc