Re: Let Me Get This Straight . . .

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Jeff Bone (jbone@jump.net)
Date: Sun May 13 2001 - 14:41:42 PDT


John Klassa wrote:

> >>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2001, "Jeff" == Jeff Bone wrote:
>
> Jeff> such as the view that a fetus is a human being
>
> I hate to jump into the middle of this, because I really don't have the
> energy to post 30 messages to FoRK in a single day, like some of you do
> :-), but I have to ask... In your mind, at what point is that fetus a
> human being?

When it acquires language, or perhaps when it is capable of fending for
itself. BTW, that's not really a joke; as long as we have to dabble in
quasi-mystical questions such as "when is a human being a person" etc. in
order to have laws that are consistent and make sense, I think those are just
as reasonable as any other definition.

> If it's a human being when it comes out, why isn't it one
> when it's inside? If it's one when it's on the inside, why isn't killing
> it the same as murder? Is murder acceptable to tolerant, open-minded
> people?

Okay, so let me see if I can spin a reasonable argument. Many conservatives
are opposed to abortion, but favor capital punishment. The apparent
motivation for capital punishment is to remove a member of society that is
perceived by other members as permanently detrimental to society. Similarly,
an abortion can be viewed as the choice to remove a member of a family that
will place --- in the mind of the mother --- an undue burden on herself, her
body, her finances, her family, her emotional state, her educational
opportunities, her career, whatever. I think reasonable people could argue
that it's inconsistent to favor capital punishment without also accepting
abortion; either they are both murder and murder is reprehensible, or they
are both murder but murder is acceptable in some contexts, or they are neither
one murder and therefore acceptable.

> I realize that not every abortion is a partial-birth abortion.
> Nonetheless, a partial-birth abortion is an abortion, and so in your mind,
> it isn't something that my beliefs should be allowed to interfere with,
> where you and your body (or that of your wife/girlfried/whatever) are
> concerned.

Yes, that is correct.

> Apparently, were the head to come out, the law would deem this a real
> birth, and the result would be a real child. Were the doctor to kill the
> child after its head is out, the doctor would presumably be guilty of
> murder. Just because its head happens to be inside, though, it's legal to
> kill it... This isn't murder? This is acceptable?

Yes. However:

> This isn't something
> I should be incensed against, and should work to prevent? <boggle>

It's something that should be discouraged socially, culturally, etc. if at
all. It's not something that should be legislated. Gov't really has very
little place in reproduction; certainly, if a parent --- a *mother* --- does
not wish to be a mother, that should be her choice. Nobody else's.

> Society would have you believe that spanking is akin to child abuse. If
> you swat your kid on the rear, you should go to jail. Yet, if you're so
> inclined, you're free to suck your kid's brains out through a tube, so
> long as the kid's head is still inside its mother. Unbelievable.
> Absolutely unbelievable.

Though I don't personally favor physical punishment and would never use that
as a mechanism to discipline any child I might have, the "spanking = child
abuse" argument is ludicrous. IMO, the law should be as non-interfering in
the reproductive and parenting processes as possible, and ULTIMATELY
non-interfering when it comes to what goes on with and within an individual's
own body.

jb


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 13 2001 - 15:08:21 PDT