From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Originator: jsue@mars.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:24:05 GMT

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.

Now wait a second.  You seem to be under the impression that society
always changes, so let it change.  I for one do not believe that all
changes are for the "good" of human-kind.  Also, just because  you
want a change does not mean that it is what "society" wishes, nor that
it is best for society.  Also, just because a particular change has taken
place, that does not mean that it is right, nor that it is the general
wish of society at large - merely the wish of those in society who can
hold and wield the power at the correct moment in history.

>
>>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.  

First, while you may not be pre-occupied with $$$, you use of examples
of material value are "worthless" when used in an anology to something
that is not a material value.  For example, we do not believe that any
amount of money (or other material goods) is a substitute for a human
being.  Thus, we judge this non-material "value" much differently than
we do a material one (like money).  The value of material things does
change significantly, however non-material things (honesty, integrity,
life) do not.

>As for non-material things being measured by their
>relative worth, we do this all the time.  I'll try to take a
>noncontroversial example:  Freedom of Speech.  We value it highly as a
>society; but apparently not so much as safety in certain circumstances
>(yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre).  Here we've shown how much we
>value these concepts by asserting their relative worth.

Okay, now you're talking.  Using analogy of non-material "values" and
their relative worth to each other is a step in the right direction.   
However, you also have stated that values, in general, change.  While
your example does show relative worth of non-material values, it does
not show that these values change like material ones do.

>
>As for your children, you've set their relative worth (>>all the $).
>That's fine (and admirable).  But do you value them more than your own
>life?  I'd bet you'd sacrifice your life for them.  Thus you've shown
>how much you "value" your own life, relative to how much you "value"
>thiers.  Denying that EVERYTHING has a "value" relative to everything
>else, is just sticking your head in the sand.

Again, you're example was for material values, which, as I've said,
are judged and compared differently than non-material ones.  The use
of material values in the example to show how they change, and transferring
that logic to non-material values has no basis in what you've stated.

>
>>>You repeatedly claim not to want to start a "when life begins" discussion,
>>>but all your writing is infused with the apparent assumption that life
>>>begins at conception (or very, very early), so I don't think you're being
>>>very honest here.  The key question surrounding abortion is always WHEN
>>>is it allowed.
>>
>>Your writing is infused with the apparent assumption that life begins
>>at birth.  
>
>I don't deny it, so you haven't "caught me out".  You on the other hand
>say one thing and imply another.

Actually, (I thought) I said that human kind needs to outright decide
what it really believes.  What I believe is that, right now, we're
trying to have our cake and eat it too.  For example, if a person
through an act of violence causes a woman to lose her un-born child,
there are many who want that person to stand trial for murder - implying
a "life" value for the fetus.  However it can be decided just as easily
that that life has no value, and aborted - for any reason.

>
>> Which is to say that, one minute (hour) the fetus is a
>>"thing" which could be destroyed without conscience, but in another it
>>is something to value and protect.  In your case, using the word
>>"fetus" is a euphemism to fight off the negative affects of your
>>statements.
>
>No, not "without conscience".  After the fetus becomes viable I increase
>it's relative worth (but may still place it below the woman's well being).
>After birth, the fetus-turned-child takes another large step up in value.

Why is it's value below the woman's well being.  If the fetus were
alive outside of the woman's body we don't allow this distinction.
You still have an area that defies definition of why the value is
placed this way.

>>Also, again I am not saying when abortion is "allowed".  You may not
>>have noticed, but this discussion is about philosophy of life and
>>values, and how abortion relates to this in our society.  Not all
>>ideas in a philosophy must be legislated into laws.
>
>Actually this discussion (alt.abortion.inequity), when no bogged down in
>flame wars, is a discussion of BOTH philosophies of life AND pragmatic
>attempts to deal with society.  

Wrong!  My original statement was about the affects of allowing for a 
"sub-class" of beings in our society.  The potential negative impact
is horrendous - exemplified by the extreme measures taken by the Nazis in
Germany.  Remember, they took what were relatively "rational" laws and
twisted them to their own means.  What I contend is that this issue should
not be left to these vagueries, but clearly defined and stressed through
how we live our lives.

>Me, you're suggesting that *I* want
>philosophy legislated?  Sheesh, I'm the one arguing that the gov't, the
>courts, the rabid-right should ALL keep out our our bedrooms and private
>lifes -- the religious right is the side arguing for more laws (legislating
>*their* philosophy as the "one true" one, of course).

Well, I certainly wasn't suggesting that you wanted anything legislated.
I was merely explaining myself soas not to have my ideas misconstrued to
be whishes to have abortion outlawed.  BTW, attacking a "philosophy" merely
because of it's source is not beneficial to a frank, honest discussion
of ideas.

>
>[stuff]
>>>I'll skip the human rights vs. animal rights discussion...
>>>What do you consider a "viable" individual?  I say that it is one that can
>>>live with out relying on one *particular* individual.  Very few (if any)
>>>such individuals get aborted since they usually removed from an woman
>>>by cesarian or birth sometime after they get to such a stage.  Statistics
>>>anyone, on how many post-viable abortions there are?
>>
>>What I am saying is that if we only value what we can see (ie., a
>>"viable" human being), and ignore the value of that which we can't,
>>then we've left quite a wide hole open for abuse.  Now, your
>>definition of a "viable" individual is a good case in point.  Under
>>that definition I can say that, since my aged parent, grandparent,
>>whatever, can not live without relying on me, then that person is not
>>viable.  
>
>I suggest you take a reading class (with emphesis on comprehension).
>TRY reading the above again.  Where I state "viable" involves not relying
>on a *particular* person.  Someone else could take care of your (generic
>relative) and they would live; thus the (relative) is a viable human life.

Ah.  But my statement says that your definition can be (mis)construed
for whatever benefit I, or anyone else wants.  If I believe my aged/invalid
relation is solely dependent on me, I may abandon that person.  That is
the loophole in your definition:  Although "someone else could", nobody
did.  I would not be guilty of any crime because that person was apparently
solely dependent on me in particular.

>I am making the huge assumption that this person is not surgically attached
>to you and takes nutrition from you blood stream and uses your kidneys
>for waste removal; if they are this dependant on you and ONLY you then
>I'm surprised I haven't seen mention of you in the news.
>
>> Therefore we can terminate the existence of that person.  Ok,
>>that is my interpretation of what you said above... 
>
>If that's how you "interprete" the written word (by dropping key words)
>then I hope (and pray :-) that no one ever makes you a judge.
>
>> but that's what
>>can happen in a society when you live by these vague definitions.  Whether
>>one can "survive" on one's own without any particular individual is
>>an extremely arbitrary and tenuous position.
>
>Oh, I see the problem here.  Your ignorance of the difference in meaning
>between "particular" and "any".  If I meant "any" I would have said so.

I know the difference, however I'm trying to show you how your definition
*can* be shot full of holes if enough effort is given.  In my example, if I 
withdraw/abandon my support for a person dependent on me then I shouldn't
be responsible if someone else doesn't come along to take my place.  By
your definition they don't rely on me in *particular* so it is not my
responsibility since they can rely on *any* other person.

>I certainly don't advocate that viable means capable of living independent
>of ANY outside help.  But I draw the line when that support is taken
>unwillingly from one individual at the biological level (this clause
>put in to avoid yet another round in the paternaty side track; not
>particularly relavent to this point).  If in the above situation your 
>relative is indeed surgically attached, then I say you have a perfect
>right to remedy that if you so want.
>

So, if I were a siamese twin joined at the chest.  And I had the heart
and other vital organs, I should be able to "abort" my twin because
he/she is particularly dependent on me.  Is this what you mean:

If so:  How would this living being react to such a philosophy of life?
	Does it matter?

If not: This is exactly what an unborn human is inside a mother's womb.

>I dispute that my definition is all that vague.  Take the object
>(fetus/relative) in question and hand it to some person who considers it
>of high relative worth (value) who is willing to take care of it.
>If it lives, it's viable.
>  If it doesn't, you goofed. Technologically it's
>a little difficult to estimate the *exact* point of viability.

This reflects a cavalier attitude about life in general.  Since it's
difficult to determine when a fetus is viable, you just say "To heck
with it.  If we can't tell we'll just say it has no meaning."


>  Luckily
>we (as a society) rarely have to deal with these hard cases as I'll assert
>there are very few of these borderline cases (still waiting on statistics).
>This is a very pragmatic approach and I'm sure it will bother you that
>I'm not discussing it in wishy-washy "philosophy of life" terms; but tough,
>that's the way life is.

Pragmatic for whom?  The mother, just because a baby doesn't fit in her
current plans?  Society can nurish and support people who find themselves
in this situation, rather than ostracize them.  This would be a positive
change in our society's values.  If she doesn't want to keep a child after 
birth there are other alternatives at that time.


-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion