From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:16:24 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Nov10.022405.5346@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>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:

>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.
>
>>
[an admission, finally, that values in society DO change]
Jeffrey, you try to pin me down with saying that all such changes are
"good".  I've never claimed this.  Thought I do have a few examples:
blacks and women are no longer property of (white) men.  Sounds like
a good change to me.  The societies you harken back for DID place
a $$ value on human life; it just happened to give white (I'm presuming
here) males a lot more power over others.

Who cares (in the general sense) what *you* in particular think were
"good" changes and which were bad.  Our society as a whole chooses, by some
consensus forming means (not always the best way, but better than the
dictatorial style some would impose).  If you want to change things
back, you can try to *peacefully* persuade members of society to adopt
your opinions, but I will be doing the same and my opinions differ.
As for those values not being the "wish of society at large", I'm
afraid that this hasn't been shown to be the case w.r.t. abortion.
Polls consistently support a woman's right to choose.  Anti-abortion
oriented polls consistently show that people are uncomfortable with
making such a decision, but I don't think they really show that the
public at large is ready to take away that choice from others.
You will probably characterize them differently.

>>>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.

Okay, mixed material/non-material example.  I value honesty and my own
integrety is important to me.  You give me $1000 and I'll tell my boss
a lie (how I couldn't come in to work as I was sick).  Give me more
$$$ (amount not yet settled) and I'll tell a larger lie.  Give me 
a few million dollars and I'll tell the S&L regulators I didn't think
it a conflict of interest to approve a >$10 million loan to my business
partners.  Oops, sorry, Neil Bush fantasy of mine. Just because
there are *some* values we hold to be of greater value than all the
available $$ doesn't mean the domains of values (non-material) and
material goods is a disjoint set.  It's all one huge scale.

>>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.

In the above "lie" example.  For a different boss, I might require a
different amount of $$.  Values change.  It really is just that simple.
Besides, as another example:  what's the going price of a black slave
in this country now vs. 150 years ago?  Are you still going to argue
that the "value" of human life has never changed?  Or is it that
blacks aren't human, that you're arguing (Sorry, I couldn't help
myself with this jab.  Since it's so obvious I though even you would
be able to think it up).

>>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.
        your
>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.

NOT differently.  Maybe they are on different ends of the scale, but
*everything* is measured relative to everything else.  Using material
examples, was an attempt to take this concept out of the realm of
controversy, so we could discuss the issue.  

>>>>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

Societies have never done this in the past, why should they do it now
or in the future.  Sure in the sanitized history books it looks like
"human kind outright decided what it really believes", but don't
believe it.  Societies have always been, and will always be, fluid.
I suspect that it's probably an inate human characteristic.  Stagnate
and die.

>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.

Because I (and society) set no FIXED value on "life".  In the case of
abortion the fetus was not wanted and thus had a low value.  In the
case of an act of violence inducing a miscarriage I'm sure if the woman
was on the way to an abortion clinic that authorities would not charge
the person with murder of the fetus.  Assault on the woman, definitely.
See, the key is the value placed on the fetus by the woman that would
have to carry it to term.  Similarly if you have something growing within
you I'll let you set it's value.  Once it is no longer dependant upon
that ONE particular individual then I (and society) change it's value.

Put another way.  If killing a (born) child is murder and society says
we should lock up such individuals, and under your reasoning a fetus
is of equal value (both are "life") then killing a fetus is murder and
both the doctor and the woman (at least an accessory to the crime)
should be locked up.  And if we go back further, same for a miscarriage
of a embryo in cases where the woman may have contributed (eg. did
strenous exercise).  And further the non-implatation of a zygote
(also "life") because the woman was taking a contraception at the time
that prevented it.  See.  You imply life={zygote,embryo,fetus,child,adult},
and you say that all are of equal value.  But this leads to silly
paradoxes.

>>> 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.

If the fetus was alive outside the woman's body, then it is viable.
Since it no longer requires her and only her body then it is no longer
a parasite (sorry, but this IS the correct term even if it is laden with
bad connotations).  I think above I was pretty clear on how/why I set
the values I did; assuming that you're not just using a debating
ploy and put some thought into it I think most people have basically the
same idea.  Please give me some concrete examples of how YOU would
set the relative value of a woman's well being and a fetus.

>>>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.

Ah, please don't write "Wrong!" when I state what the basic principles of
alt.abortion.inequity discussions are.  That you wanted to limit it to
philosophical bickering is besides the point; I say that they are
inseparatable and that philosophy without looking at the pragmatic side
of the issue is pissing into the wind.  Yes, you want to limit the
discussion to "vagueries" of philosophy is just your way of ignoring
the actual impacts on real live *visible*, *touchable*, women that
one could hold intelligent conversation with. 

And please drop the shrill anti-abortionist tactic of linking abortion
and Nazis.  It's a tired old suggestion that's been picked to pieces
repeatedly.  Same said Nazis also dis-allowed abortions by arian (sp?)
woman in order to build up the population of the "correct" type.  They
were control freaks and since you also wish to prevent abortions and
are a control freak, then you too must be a Nazi. 1/2 :-)  Sorry, but
that's an unproductive line of argument.  

We define lots of "sub-class" *beings*.  Dogs, cats,...  Oh, you meant
human.  Guess, we should also erase the distinction between adults and
children.  Both are beings, in fact I'd even say, both are humans. So
we should consider them equal in all respects.  Again, this is a silly
line of reasoning.  For similar reasons we can't equate fetus==child.
They just are NOT identical and thus can't be treated identically.
That you take it to mean fetus is a prejoritive "sub-class" is your
problem.  

As for "vagueries" I haven't really seen any proposals from you. Please,
spell out EXACTLY what you are proposing.  I'll expect details on how
to deal with those "tough" cases that we continually discuss here.
Remember we're all expecting concrete and explicit details, "vagueries"
are NOT allowed.

>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.

So, give us concrete examples when abortions would be allowed or
disallowed and how you would write such laws.  Your tone and most of what
you write argues that abortion is somehow evil, so you can see how I
misconstrued you to believe that you were arguing for it's abolition.
Philosophy is all fine and good, but I see it as pretty pointless unless
it's grounded in reality.  Maybe that a "philosophical" bias one gets
in the hard sciences; we're always comparing things to reality.

>>[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?

[just as a side note here, I'll re-inject the numbers I got from another
thread...  approx 100/year ALL due to save the live of the mother]

>>>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.

Still missing on the reading part.  Sigh.  Read it slowly.  I see no
loopholes, there are other laws to deal with abandonment of people.  
Beside people do this all the time, or don't you read the newspapers? 
What we're discussing here is how we deal with parasites (again, I ask
you to strip away the negative connotations) that are biologically 
dependant on your^H^H^H^Ha woman's body.

[same argument again...]

>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.

Discussing philosophy under extemely contrived and unrealistic conditions
is pointless, transfering such conclusions back to situations only vaguely
related is just silly.

Nah, I'm going to have to pass on this one, as this post is getting too
long already.

>>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."

No, again you (purposely?) misread me.  I'm saying that there are stages
where it is QUITE clear whether the fetus is viable and there I am
quite clear on it's status (or value).  In the grey region, I content
to let the woman on whom it depends decide it's value.  I'm NOT saying
it has "no meaning", just that I (and YOU) are not qualified to assign
a value.  You seem to be asserting that you are qualified to set a 
value and that it is unique and objective and uncontroversial.

>>  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.

What do you care if the mother decides that a baby doesn't fit into
her current plans?  How does that impact you?  Not at all?  Then
why should you make the decision for her?  I agree that society *should*
nurish and support mothers and not ostracize them.  What makes you think
that pro-choice people "hate" all mothers or are against adoption?
I think they are admirable ideals (mothers and adoption); I just don't
chose to impose decisions on others about how to run their lives.
And I don't think you should either, lest the principle come back to
haunt us, with people in authority imposing their will in private lives
in other ways (eg. "requiring" abortions in certain cases).

>Jeff Sue   
> - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)  
 [don't want your opinions, thanks, got my own]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame