NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/46895

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 7.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46895 alt.abortion.inequity:4896 soc.women:18955 soc.men:18766
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!jsue
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:56:49 GMT
Lines: 135

HA!  Do you contend that only religions bring "values" into our
societies?  Just as an aside, your claim that an aborted fetus has no
value is deeply rooted in fear/hatred of religions (hey, tit-for-tat).

Yes, I readily admit that my parents are deeply religious.
However I have read many different philosophies throughout my life
(non-fiction as well some in fiction stories) and I can tell you that
these - along with quite a lot of ideas from my own comtemplations -
have a *much* more significant affect on my present values.  In point
of fact, I caused many of these "religious" people much grief in early
life due to my constant questioning and free thinking.  To say that
ones values are merely the tainting of our lives by religion is to say
that all of our life-long experiences have no meaning.

Don't forget: there are many people who consider themselves atheists
who believe in the value of human life - without believing in a God.
For my part, I am attempting to explain - without relying on quotes
from religious texts - how one can value our existence and argue against
abortions.  (remember, I am NOT for laws against abortions)

Also, I did NOT say, specifically, that fetus=human.  What I said was that
fetus=<human life>.  This is much  different.  You can not tell me that
once a fetus is formed, you do not believe that their is a life/existence
defined for it.  You know that a life is inevitable (barring unforeseen
circumstances), and what is inevitable is considered a conclusion,
a "truth".

>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.

>  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?

>>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.

>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.  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.

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.

>
>[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?

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.  Therefore we can terminate the existence of that person.  Ok,
that is my interpretation of what you said above... 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.

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