From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: how i become pro-life
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:03:53 GMT

an3329@anon.penet.fi writes:

>For a long time I was pro-choice because I thought pro-life people were
>crazy religious nuts. I thought they were trying to impose their religious
>beliefs on the rest of the nation. I was scared they might try to get other
>things outlawed and this nation would become a religious nation. I didn't
>want religious nuts taking over this great nation of ours. I saw it as a
>culture war and I didn't want their culture pushed on me because I thought it
>was hateful culture. They hated gays and atheists and women and I wanted no
>part of a hate-filled culture like theirs.

>Then I began to think about my abortion beliefs. I didn't have any! I just
>despised the culture of the pro-life people. They were the enemy to me. I
>didn't even try to think that abortion might be killing babies because I
>despised the pro-life culture so much. I began reading books and articles
>on abortion and I became convinced that abortion is killing babies. Democrats
>have always been the ones who have helped the sick, the weak, the helpless.
>It saddens me to see that many of my friends don't share that belief when
>it comes to abortion.

>I see many pro-choice people saying hateful stuff at pro-life people here
>and I think maybe they should think about why they're saying that stuff.
>I think many of them were like me and they just despise pro-life culture and
>they haven't really thought about their abortion beliefs. It's easy to say
>lots of nasty stuff at pro-life people because much of the public despises
>them and makes fun of them. But abortion is not funny.

I don't know about "other" pro-choice people, but I *have* thought a lot
about abortion and other "morality" issues.  Here is a sketch of what I
came up with...


Axiom:  A person has the right to do *anything* that does not interfere
        with the rights of another person.

In itself, that statement is so simple, so general, so basic, that it is
hard to argue why it is "correct", and nearly impossible to argue *against*.
I take it as an axiom, from which to determine the fundamental "morality" of
any specific scenario.

The problem is, that axiom is too vague.  What is meant by "person"; what
is meant by "interfere".  There is always the right to do something that
interferes with no other rights, but are there also rights that *do*
interfere in some way?  These questions must be addressed in a realistic
and consistent manner.

Approach:  Religious dictates and legal precidents are unreliable as absolute
           determiners, but they may make good guidelines for judging the
           possible "correctness" of an approach that is found.

For example, most cultures would agree that most (maybe all?) of the "Ten
Commandments" are descriptions of things that are "wrong" (murder, etc).
(at least the ones that non-fanatics can remember)  It would then be expected
that any realistic approach would end up justifying those decisions, as far
as "society" agrees with them.

The reason for avoiding religious dictates specifically is that the "true"
origins of them can not be known.  Most claim they come from their version
of "God".  Most of them also contradict other religions, so that only one
of the thousands of religions could "really" be "true".  It is my belief
that most religious dictates "really" came from a wise person long ago who
did a similar "soul-searching" to what I am doing here.  (It is entirely
possible that "God"--whatever name--guided their thoughts, but I will ignore
that as irrelevant.)  As such it is likely that the main results will be
similar, but this one will have the advantage of modern understanding of
the physical world.

So, that said, I will dive in to the "interpretation" of the Fundamental
Axiom of Morality (FAM?).

"person" is often used simply to refer to a "human being", perhaps because
it sounds nicer and less technical.  I think "person" originally refered to
"a member of society"; ("people" is often synonomous with "society".)  Further
thought on the matter led me to conclude that the abstract traits we usually
associate with "normal", "adult" human beings are what are necessary in a
"person".  The physical traits make them "human", but a different physical
system could hypothetically display the same abstract traits, and still be
considered a "member of society".  Thus:

Interpretation:  A "person" is an independent, interacting, intelligent
                 individual.

Clarification:  "independent" mostly defines the boundaries of the "person",
                but also includes the ability to exist as a separate entity
                (and still satisfy the other traits).
Clarification:  "interacting" means that the "person" interacts with other
                "people", including the capacity for advanced communication.
                It also includes the ability to cause significant change in
                their environment through physical interaction and/or
                communication.
Clarification:  "intelligent" means that the "person" can communicate abstract
                ideas and learn not only from their *own* experiences, but
                from the experiences of *others*.  (The latter, specifically,
                is one of the most important traits; it gives humans an
                evolutionary (survival) advantage over other animals.)
Clarification:  "individual" means that a "person" has unique and independant
                memories, experiences, and knowledge.  (which is always
                changing)

The examples of how "person" is often used (sometimes figuratively) that some
of these are based on are pretty complicated, so I would like to skip them.
If people have problems with some of them, I can try to explain the
justification(s) later.

I assert that this definition of a "person" is the highest level of existance.
(it is even a bit more restrictive than "sentience")  It is the level at which
a being can have moral understanding and moral responsibility (know right from
wrong and be obliged to follow it), and as such represents those beings that
"people" have a moral obligation towards.  (This is roughly the justification
for drawing the morality line at "person" instead of at "human".)


Determining what to do in the case of two "rights" interfering can be fairly
subjective.  To be as objective as possible I use the following approach:

1)  Be sure you identify the two people involved.  (only people have rights)
2)  The two "rights" should be given specifically enough that the interference
    is specific and obvious.  An example would be:  "right not to be shot" vs.
    "right to shoot someone".
3)  Try to determine which right is "really" causing the interference and
    which one does no interfering by itself.  Using the above example:  My
    right not to be shot does not interfere with you shooting someone (else).
    Your "right" to shoot someone *would* interfere with my right if you were
    to shoot *me*.  Thus the former right is valid while the second can not
    be (it would violate anyone you *did* shoot at).


Now to apply this to abortion:  To start off we identify the two involved.
The only two are the mother and the unborn child.  However the unborn child
is not a person.  For most of develpment it is not independent.  The unborn
can not interact with their environment.  Because the unborn can not interact
with their environment, they can not develop meaningful memories or
experiences.  No other person could be used to "block" abortion, since only
the mother has contact with the unborn durring the pregnancy.  (Note, however,
that to *force* her to have an abortion would interfere with *her* right to
have the child.)

This fact alone means that abortion is a right; there is no "person" whose
rights would be interfered with.  If it could be shown that the unborn "really"
is a person at some point, then this decision would have to change.  This is
very unlikely since it would amount to demonstrating a conversation with an
unborn child in a repeatable experiment.  (though other methods may work as
well)  The farther back you go, the less likely it is to be at all *possible*.
One obvious constraint is the point of viability (potentially independent).

We do have a responsibility to be cautious with the laws we set and perhaps
disallow abortions after viability, "just in case" a viable fetus could be a
"person".  But with my current knowledge and understanding (and "definition"),
it is not a "person" until at least birth.

-Rob