From: Phil Osborn (philosborn2001@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 22:18:11 MDT
Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)wrote on Sat
May 18 2002 - 01:26:09 MDT
> ... On before-birth or foetus rights, the line is
wavery. But it is not wavery once birth occurs. So why
pretend the two are equivalent? >
Suppose the birth is "premature?" We are constantly
pushing back the viability point with medical
technology, right? So, if a foetus at 6 months is not
a human with all the rights, etc., than how is a
foetus delivered and supported by medtech at 6 months
suddenly any better? If 6 months won't do it, then
try other figures - 8 months? 3 months? The point is
that the after/before birth point is not a logically
determining point at all; it's merely convenient. We
know that in fact there is no real basis for rejecting
a foetus vs. a birthed infant re rights.
The - I thought - obvious reason why I then chose to
go down the path of discussion of "women and children
first on the lifeboat" was that it seems clear to me
that much of the child chauvenism that grants rights
to a creature much less knowledgeable or intelligent
than a grown cat or crow has its roots in the altruist
Judeo-Christian ethic.
Implicit is the idea that we ought to give every
infant "a chance." And behind that idea is the
concept that infants are placed here at GOD's WILL!!!,
with the whole plan of salvation, etc. jeapardized by
an infant's death. Recognizing that an infant is in
fact a rather dumb animal, requiring a huge investment
by other people to become a viable person, and
throwing out those silly religious notions, brings us
back to the position that infanticide is simply an
unfortunate choice for a woman - or man, whoever has
ownership rights - to have to make.
Upon logical analysis, it is idiocy to consider that a
new-born child is worth more, or even nearly as much,
as a typical adult. Observe - repeating myself here -
the replacement cost. A newborn infant costs
considerable stress on the woman (with possible health
detriment, including accelerated aging), plus money
for medical, and considerable time lost for a period
of nine months - roughly the same value as a new
non-luxury car for a middle class American woman,
anyway.
To replace a lost infant, the cost, then, is on the
order of $10,000 to $15,000. On the other hand, to
replace the average adult, you have to figure 18-21
additional years of support, including college
tuition, etc. I haven't done the figures, nor intend
to as precision is not essential to the argument, but
it is obvious that the average adult replacement cost
is many times that of the infant. Note that we're not
talking about eliminating ALL infants or ALL adults,
which is the only scenario in which YP Fun's argument
about "potential" would make any sense. There is no
cultural shortage of infants.
(The above estimates are made largely with regard to
labor value, which will of course vary with the
individual. A poor woman may have lost the same
amount of time, but her time is simply not worth as
much. The loss of an infant to a 3rd world mother
living in a cardboard shack might be worth $100, while
the same loss to Melinda Gates might be $1 billion.)
The Victorian "women and children first" position is
explicitly based on the idea that BECAUSE men are
superior in capability, they are primarily
responsible, regardless of the situation. It is the
men who must have fallen down, and it is the honorable
thing to do for a man to sacrifice himself when
necessary to preserve the lives of those unable to
fend for themselves when he or other men fail. A
secondary line in the Victorian position claims that
women are morally superior to men by nature - but men
redeem themselves by their sacrifices in supporting
and if necessary rescueing women by their deaths. I
certainly do not agree with any of these positions or
moral arguments. Women are perfectly capable of
supporting themselves and preserving their own lives.
In making the argument that I would chose men first, I
am not trying to attack women. I don't think that
women lack value or capability. I'm sure that if all
the man died due to some engineered plague, the women
would carry on just fine. I simply think that men -
in the general U.S. culture, at least - are more
valuable and more capable. That's why they are paid
more on average. Of course, you can then go off on a
tirade about glass ceilings and old-boy networks,
etc., and perhaps that accounts for some small %. (And
I'm sure that this particular argument could go on
forever, so just assume that I am a stupid male
chauvenist if that pleases you.) Thus, not knowing
anything but the sex of the people, I would naturally
chose men.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:11 MST