From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun May 19 2002 - 00:46:28 MDT
Phil Osborn wrote:
> 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.
>
It is an independent living creature. I did not say the point
before birth was logically determining, I said the point of
birth is a much stronger demarcation (or menat to). You have to
draw such a point somewhere if you aren't going to fall into
fallacies on either end of the scale. There is no way to
determine that point with full rational scientific accuracy. It
is not that kind of thing that is being determined in the first
place. Which is again part of my point.
> 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.
>
That is a pretty bald assertion and transparently false as many
non Judeo-Christian derived societies have had similar notions
of child rights to life. You assertions about women being
worth less than men just made an already threadbare argument worse.
> 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!!!,
That is far from the only argument for children at least to be
granted such rights as the right to life. It is a poor argument
to claim that such an elementary right comes from some notion of
supernatural beings and therefore neither you nor anyone else
should be bound by it.
> 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
You and I are "rather dumb animals" frankly. So that is hardly
an argument against infants. That infant, if it is yours,
contains part of your DNA. The biological pressures towards it
upkeep are also fairly strong.
> 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.
>
Unfortunate choice? To one side, a foetus is not an "infant".
You have to be born to qualify. Who says there is such a thing
as ownership rights over the very life of your own child? That
is precisely what is at issue so please do not beg the question.
> 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.
>
After birth the infant poses no necessary health stress on the
woman. And we could easily get rid of the stress of pregnancy
with a bit of technological magic if we wished. At the point of
birth all the things you list are sunk costs, already paid. And
an infant, to most human parents, is much more precious than a
luxury car and has far greater potential.
> To replace a lost infant, the cost, then, is on the
> order of $10,000 to $15,000. On the other hand, to
You have utterly ignored the emotional costs.
> 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.
>
This is a head trip that has nothing in the least to do with the
question at hand. Human lives are not a manner of balance
sheets. Neither are which lives of which biological humans are
indeed human lives. Doesn't the question seem silly on the face
of it?
You are talking about killing infants and any others you judge
to not meet your standard of human, as being perfectly
acceptable. I continue to see this as monstrous.
> (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.)
>
Irrelevant. Take your accounting elsewhere than the right to
life of human beings, please. I find it interesting that you
think the only real value of relevance here is monetary! This
does not say very fortunate things about your attitude on the
question. If you do not think this is the only real relevant
value then why harp on it?
> 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.
>
As I mentioned, the entire lifeboat scenario is utterly
irrelevant to the question.
> 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
Then you are, by definition, a chauvinist.
> more on average. Of course, you can then go off on a
Men are paid more on average because of the long years a woman's
place was only seen as in the home, because of lingering
prejudice and because of such notions that she "probably has a
man to help take care of her" or "is liable to find one and
disappear to make babies". It has nothing to do with any real
greater value or capability. It does also have to do with the
control structures and ways of operation of the culture being
predominantly male.
> 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.
>
If you knew nothing but the sex you would have no realistic
basis for choosing at all. You would simply take those closes
at hand and consistent with saving the greatest number.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:11 MST