From: mfragass@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Fragassi)
Subject: Re: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:18:53 GMT

In <1993Jan27.152539.46799@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> hippee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>I fail to see how they are different cases.  One being living upon another is
>called a parasite.  It is not a value judgement.  It simply is.  As to the
>morality of the "nipping,"  if there were a way to remove the parasite without
k>harm to the parasite, that would certainly be preferable.  In the human case,
>though, that is impossible for most of the period of gestation during which the
>fetus is living off of the sources which are provided by the woman's body. 
>Lower the resources and the fetus begins to feed from the body itself.  All, of
>course, without permission.  The reason I used the term of "parasite" is to
>illustrate the difference between pigs, higher-level mammals, and fetuses.
>The others do not feed from a host in the same fashon.  Thus, it would appear
>to me that the killing of a pig or ape is less morally credible than abortion.

Allow me to play devil's advocate here for a while.
Well - is the justification for removal of parasites simply that "it didn't
have permission?"  Because then there's the pro-life stance that anyone who has
sex does so with full knowledge that they're inviting "parasitic invasion", if 
you prefer; this viewpoint would have it that the "parasite" didn't have to ask
permission, since the "host" knew the risks beforehand.  (I don't agree, but
it's a hole in your argument.)
 
>In any choice between the actuality of the life of the mother and the potential
>life of her offspring, the actuallity outweighs the potentiality every time.
>I would be more willing to acceed to her wishes (to have an abortion) than to
>gamble on the posibility of the fetus' existence.

Doesn't that only apply in cases where the pregnancy represents a known threat
to the mother?

>Sentience and memory (and the ability to express it in human terms) have always
>been held to be the most basic of the qualities of life.  A machine has no
>concept of self and so cannot be classified as humanly alive.  That which is 
>not humanly alive is "ethically" manipulable.  Memory is another quidepost of
>self-awareness (over time).  The bearing of these on abortion concerns whether
>the fetus can be "ethically" manipulated to another's benefit to the detriment
>of the fetus (i.e. abortion).

Yeah, but the pro-life stance explicitly rejects that standard of what is and 
what is not ethically manipulable, at least in the following manner:  anything
that is human (defined merely as whatever is the offspring of human beings, at
whatever age, and regardless of physical and mental abilities) can not
ethically manipulated in these ways.  And they're consistent on this point;
remember how Operation Rescue tried to stop the removal of the feeding tube of
that one brain-dead woman in Missouri?  It wouldn't surprise me if they lobbied
in Michigan against Dr. Kevorkian, either.
	As to _why_ they reject that ethical standard, is basically because of: 
their belief in the soul; their belief in special "sanctity" of human life
(which is not necessarily the same as having the soul, but does hinge on a
belief in a Creator of mankind); and just a general, usually unexplained,
belief that simply having full mental abilities, being fully developed and
self-sustainable outside the womb, and even having a full brain, does not
invalidate the "parasite's" classification as a human being, just a very very
extremely young one.  But most people really don't ascribe to this view; it
usually isn't argued for without being based on religious principles that can
only be taken on personal faith (like, is there or is there not a soul? 
whichever view you take, you just can't convince the other side that their view
is necessarily wrong).  
	My point here is only that your point of view can be as logically
consistent and pro-choice as can be, but it won't change any minds that already
ascribe to the pro-life outlook.   (Not that I'm sure that you _want_ that,
it's just a gratuitous observation.)

____________
As to the previous post where someone (sorry, I forgot who) asked about my
point re: quality of life of the child:  actually, I don't really think
pro-choice arguments are really that heavily grounded in this concern. 
Sometimes, you will hear a pro-choice argument that goes like this: 
	"Most children who are seriously abused and who live miserable
	lives were unwanted children;
	they were born because their mother couldn't get an abortion;
	abortion must remain legal, or else more children will grow up
	in such environments."  
The implications are both maintaining the quality of society (family values!)
and the quality of life for children.  However, it's really kind of
secondary (in my impression); primary is always the quality of life of the
woman, and her ability to best decide for herself whether abortion or pregnancy
will be the best for her.  
	Incidentally, these are all only my impressions
about these points of view; I haven't studied them in any formal way besides
reading news and interviews in the papers, so I'm probably leaving things out
or simplifying things in what I've been saying.  Does anyone out there have any
detailed knowledge on feminist or other philosophical justifications for 
pro-choice?  For that matter, does anyone out there know anything about the 
group Feminists for Life, and how they claim that they're not a contradiction 
in terms?  This has always baffled me.
-- 
_____________________________________________________________
Mike Fragassi                        mfragass@ucs.indiana.edu
Cognitive Science Program 
Indiana University                   Insert witty saying here
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc