From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:57:15 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Nov4.161050.10605@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>(from "RE: Men and Abortion")
[about silly comparision of abortion to miscarriage]
>Do I understand this correctly?
>
>1.	If the person(s) *want* the child, then there is some reason for
>	feeling a loss is the child dies (miscarriage).
>
>2.	If the person(s) do NOT want the child, then it is merely considered
>	a *thing* and can be disposed of without guilt.
>
>>[negative stuff about pro-life people deleted]
>
>Look, for me this is not an issue rooted in religious beliefs.
>(It is, I think, rooted in my values of human beings, and compassion for others
>to the extent that I dislike what I see as the erosion of the importance of 
>"humans" to our own society.)

Sorry to question you but I think you're being disingenuous.  Many don't
believe a fetus is a "human being", so this IS part of the discussion.
The majority of those who beleive fetus==human tend to hold that belief
due to religious indoctrination, so it is a religious issue.  Most people's
"values" are not objectively decided upon, but are religious.  Until we
have a secular society all discussions of "values" will have a religious
taint.  Or were you arguing for such a society? :-)

>However, it seems strange that we calculate the value of a "being" based
>on the subjective attitudes of individuals during a stressful time of
>their lives.

Not at all strange.  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.  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.

>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".

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.

[stuff]
>Specifically:
>If we value the life and rights of a "viable" individual so much that we
                                       ^^^^^^keyword
>can justify abortion of our own kind, then why isn't this same argument
>valid when as justification in using animals in medical and product
>research in order to insure the value of life and rights of a "viable"
>individual?

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?

>Okay now, I really don't intend to get into any *huge* discussions about
>rights of women vs men vs fetus, life begins at "x" point, etc..  I just have 
>a really difficult time understanding how this society can survive with all
>it's values (not the 1992 politicians' definition) intact if we decide this
>issue on some arbitrary basis.  (The selection of 4 months (or whatever) after 
>conception seems arbitrary to me.)

Any point is going to be "arbitrary" to someone...And society has survived
many changes in it's values.  I think it will survive this as well.
Values (except by the 1992 "Bucannan" types) *must* change and shouldn't
remain "intact"; that's just a fact of human existance: society has always
changed and always will (society==values).  Stagnate and die.

>I do NOT mean to say that I support laws prohibiting abortion.  However,
>I do support some *objective* means for us to measure what we have agreed
>to as having some value.  (some contend their "God's words" do this, but
>this is too nebulous for me)  It is not enough to say that we've already
>done this with the laws we've created.  If this were true then we wouldn't
>have as much disagreement as we have today.  Both sides of the issue as it
>stands today seem about equal in size, and it's really left up to the people
>in power at a time when crucial decisions are made.

I think the mistake you are making is thinking there is some comprimise
that is going to statisfy everyone or that can "objectively" be agreed
upon.  I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I think I can safely say: 
There Isn't.  The laws we currently have ARE such a position between the 
very extremes.  How close it is to the nebulous "middle" is what we're
still discussing.  Besides, there really aren't two camps per se. rather
a full spectrum.  Classifying people into an "either/or" situation is
just a result of the political process.

>Net:  Do you feel comfortable that how our society determines the answers
>	to this issue is based on who is currently in power?  Can you live
           ^^^^(replace "this" with "any" and think about it again)
>	with the fact that, even tho today your view is reflected in current
>	laws, tomorrow it may all change?

Ummm, I'm a simple physical science type, no historian, but I see nothing
new and unique about our current situation with respect to the above
"question".  You seem to be pining for the "good ol' days" when society
"objectively" made such decisions.  Alas, there were no such times.

>I doubt that we will ever seriously be able to resolve these issues.
>The changes that this would require (both in society, and in individuals'
>acceptance of the "agreements") are far beyond our capabilities.

You could sound the same lament for most human activities, not just 
reproductive issues.  Society will just have to stumble on...

>Just some thoughtful ramblings on the subject...
>Jeff Sue   

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion