From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:14:11 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

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.  Society is a
means of pressure at keeping these values from taking wild swings and
evening out the bumps (sort of inertia).  But, even written in stone,
values DO change.  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.

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.

>>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.

> 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.
I just can't contain myself, I'm going to have to sink to your level and
retort that calling a zygote/embryo/fetus a child is just your ilk's
"euphemism" in an in an attempt to give positive connotations to something
that is not yet deserving of them.  I could call my parakeets "babies"
but I hope people don't put their value on equal footing as a real child.

>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.  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).

[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.
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 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.

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.  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.

>Jeff Sue   

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)  
 No funny little saying here; you're welcome to my opinions, though.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections