Below are some excerpts from my old attempts to find some philosophical basis in the abortion debate; I was burning in flames for what those folks chose to see in my posts; too bad they didn't understand anything of what I really meant to say. Maybe, you will... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. My first message: --------------------- I've been trying to formulate the issue in general philosophical terms, and would be happy to discuss it in these terms with anybody interested. "Rights of women over their bodies": As I understand it, the abortions are rarely performed to change the state of a woman's body, or to prevent such change. The main issue is the one of trouble and responsibility that someone might not want to accept-i.e., a functional relationship between an intelligent life form and a dependent [potential?] life form. The existence of the fetus 'inside' the female body seems to be coincidental. We could live in a space where there were no notions of 'inside' or 'outside'. If the idea of alter- native social structures under different space topologies is too difficult, let's think of what we would discuss here if humans just LAID EGGS. Where would you stand then? Suppose every female lays 1000 tiny eggs after each intercourse (fish do a lot more), and then anybody can care for them. Or other scenarios... I personally would like to discuss ethical issues with intelligent beings whose views do not depend on the peculiarities of their reproduction techniques. "A potential life form" argument. Vague. With good technology, one can always create new life forms out of anything. I would say that if IT is not a life form yet, it doesn't get any rights of one. Sounds fair? Also, this argument suggests me a funny idea: if a woman could have sex with me right now with a chance to have a baby - and she dares to refuse, then her decision bars a potential life form from coming into existence... Well, it's not that bad an argument after all... Also, a human fetus is a lot less intelligent, sensitive, self-conscious, or whatever you can respect, then, say, any normal adult dog. So if we respect the rights of a fetus, what about animals? Though the very same argument applies to babies, and whatever my system theory tells me, I would definitely save a baby before an animal... In my opinion, there is no distinct border between living or intelligent entities, and non- or potential, ones, and all attempts to define such borders are both aimed at, and born within, a particular culture. Which doesn't mean that a culture shouldn't be intelligent defining them... Resources: if we compare the amount of resources we have to spend to bring one unwanted potential human to life in this country to how little it takes to save real adult people, suffering and starving to death right now in other countries, we would conclude that anybody with any concern about human life should immediately redirect their efforts. I meant no flame here, and personally don't have a firm standpoint on abortions, believing both in the rights of intelligent life to exist, and its freedom to choose. I do believe though that the main feature of an intelligent life form is the ability to define what it is, and I do hope to find some of them here on Internet. ========================================================================= Message 2 (an answer to, and preceded by, the most intelligent ;-) of the flames) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In article 63966 Dean Kaflowitz writes: >In article <1992Mar21.075717.25237@cs.umb.edu> sasha@cs.umb.edu >(Alexander Chislenko) writes: >> >> I've been trying to formulate the issue in general philosophical terms, >> and would be happy to discuss it in these terms with anybody interested. >> >> "Rights of women over their bodies": >> >> As I understand it, the abortions are rarely performed to change the state >> of a woman's body, or to prevent such change. >... >> The main issue is the one of trouble and responsibility that someone might >> not want to accept-i.e., a functional relationship between an intelligent >> life form and a dependent [potential?] life form. The existence of the fetus >> 'inside' the female body seems to be coincidental. >... >Now, since you bring up responsibility, let's test your theories. >You assume, with your remarks, that women have a responsibility to >bear a pregnancy to term. Please demonstrate the reasoning >behind that assumption. Before doing so, please define what >you mean by "responsibility." I usually see people say "responsibility" >when they mean "obligation." OK, lets start with the "responsibility", though I do not feel quite comfortable explaining the notions of a language I know so little to its native speakers. "Responsibility" for me sounds softer, more personal and leans more into ethics than "obligation" which, in turn, is more social, strict and legal, and smells enforcement. I personally DO NOT think that a woman is obliged to bear a pregnancy to term; in the message which made you think I do, I said that a fetus is less intelligent and sensitive than an animal, and should be treated accordingly. When writing a message, I usually try to present ideas that seem to be worth discussing rather than those that just state my opinion. Presenting just one's own thoughts is analogous to the situation when one is playing chess and, in an attempt to strengthen his position in the right corner, refuses moving pieces in any other direction. Boring and stupid. So, for the discussion, I would be happy to find some reasoning for a woman's "obligation" to carry the pregnancy, but I just don't see any interesting arguments for it... However, the notion of "obligation" is culture-dependent, and in each particular case, the choice is determined by reshuffling of circumstantial details, implementation techniques, etc. If we want to really resolve the case, not just win it, we should put our argument on a firm foundation, and present the solution in a general form that would not depend on our current technological abilities to save the fetus or the peculiarities of our reproduction techniques (compared with, say, spawning caviar or laying eggs). So it's not a "pointless speculation", but an only way to come up with a resolution that won't have a big stamp "Culture-[and circumstance]- dependent" all over it. An idea for an argument: any individuals unable to wash this stamp off their ideas do not represent fully developed intelligent life forms and can be ruthlessly aborted before - or after - birth. ----------------------------------------------------- With the responsibility point having been made (if not understood), I would like to ask another question, which I cannot answer myself: Why even the most hard-line 'pro-choice'rs would agree that 'aborting' a baby 5 minutes after birth is already a murder? What is so magic about birth? A sudden gigantic leap in intelligence? - No, there just isn't any. And the baby is still less sensitive or smart than a dog. The 'inside-outside' transition? - It does contribute to the feeling of a border, and probably is the strongest argument, though I claim that this transition is irrelevant. The independence of a baby from the mother? - nonsense, we just have a new form of dependence; real independence will come many years later. Besides, if we suddenly decide to kill everybody who strongly depends on us... The transferability of the responsibility? - well, partly, maybe. Though, still, if the mother of a *born* baby cannot transfer the responsibility to anyone else, and feels that caring for the baby takes to much of her (= her body's) health, and decides to terminate the baby's life, we would call it a murder, right? So, in light of the above: where should we draw the ethical line? Most people would agree that preventing sperm from entering a woman's body (though it can prevent an appearance of an intelligent life form) is not a crime, while terminating the life of an adult fool (though it can't) is a crime. So the line should be somewhere in between. But where? My feelings put it at the moment of birth. But feelings are good to support a fight, not reasoning. My theories tell me that intelligent life forms can be told by their pursuit of the Universal knowledge, and all other creatures are, at best, living entities with rudimentary reflective consciousness, and should be preserved as a precious but expendable resource... But these theories stink. So I am trying to reconcile my feelings with my theories, and am posting this here not to change anybody's views, but in hope to get some assistance. -----------------------------