From: Samael (Samael@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Fri Jan 15 1999 - 02:00:55 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: dalec@socrates.berkeley.edu <dalec@socrates.berkeley.edu>
>I understand but disagree with the arguments that yield the "conservative"
>stance. It seems less a simple inconsistency than a skewed prioritizing
>of the lives of potential beings over existing ones. As for the corollary
>"liberal" inconsistency, notice that the whiff of paradox vanishes if the
>"liberal" permits abortions for both human and nonhuman animals, while
>also pooh-poohing the consumption of either human or nonhuman animals as
>food. Again, existing beings have priority over nonexisting ones. No
>inconsistency at all. Best, Dale
The basic argument is
1) Killing people is wrong.
2) Foetuses are people.
Most people would go with statement 1, less people with statement 2.
The problem being that it's hard to define when a foetus becomes a person.
For instance, my father is a neonatologist specialising in premature babies.
I know his NICU has dealt with babies down to 22 weeks gestation and they
have survived. This would seem to indicate higher personhood than the ball
of 8 cells that they are a teensy bit earlier in their gestation. Only
counting people as people when they are born seems a tad arbitrary.
Samael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:50 MST