XPost: uk.philosophy.humanism, alt.psychology, aus.politics   
   XPost: alt.politics.british, us.politics, alt.politics.europe   
   XPost: alt.politics.europe.misc, uk.politics.misc   
   From: mlwi@swipnet.se   
      
   "The moral problem of abortion"   
      
   Earlier in history the baby acquired status as a human being only at the   
   moment of birth. Prior to this moment, it was  seen as merely an   
   organism, a fetus. In fact, during epochs in history, the child had to   
   undergo a ritual, e.g. baptizing, before it acquired full status as a   
   human being. Before this, the parents could get rid of the child. This   
   was, of course, due to factors of poverty.   
      
   Historically, people had recourse to a symbolic and religious worldview.   
   The "rule" was that human life begins when the child is born. This is   
   the moment when it takes its first breath and starts to live as a   
   separate organism. We still celebrate this as our birthday, when our   
   life began. We don't view it as beginning a few months before.   
   Astrologers have always regarded this as the moment when life begins.   
   Although we have lost this "naive" worldview, I don't think it's   
   possible to live without a symbolic outlook. We must still have recourse   
   to symbolic rules to live by. The moral burden gets too big, otherwise.   
      
   I think we should be less sentimental about abortion. Up to a few   
   months, abortion should be legal. It is true that it is cruel, but we   
   cannot expect to remove all the dark aspects of life. Most importantly,   
   human life isn't holy. There is a tendency of putting the human being on   
   a pedestal, as if he were a divine being. But homo sapiens is the most   
   destructive and evil creature that has ever existed on this earth. There   
   is no grounds for worshipping human life.   
      
   There is a conflict between qualitatively valuable life (intellectual   
   life, spiritual life, artistic life) versus vegetative life, i.e., the   
   life of the child; motherhood and the rearing of children, etc. Among   
   simple people, such as the majority of the Nigerian population, there is   
   really no alternative to a vegetative life, so they give birth to   
   children en masse. But in the white population there are people who have   
   greater horizons than a mere instinctual and unconscious life, which   
   implies a qualitatively valuable life, capable of enhancing the   
   conscious dimensions.   
      
   The meaning of human life isn't simply to propagate the species. For   
   instance, if a woman wants to pursue a career as a musician, it might be   
   necessary to do an abortion. Thus, something spiritually valuable can   
   take root. Life isn't only about quantity. Quality is equally important.   
   So this is a conflict which we have to live with. We have to put up with   
   the painful and conflicting sides of life, and not simply remove that   
   which is morally difficult, as in the Islamic countries. Arguably, a   
   single meaningful human life is worth hundreds of unconscious and   
   mechanical lives (in a metaphorical sense).   
      
   A meaningful human life is a life that can reach its potential. Think of   
   the many women in history who had to sacrifice their individual talent   
   for the sake of motherhood and kitchen duties. An immense number of   
   philosophers, musicians, artists, poets, scientists, and spiritual   
   personalities, were never given a chance. It is very painful not to be   
   able to develop one's personality, and instead be confined within a   
   suffocating space. Many people, not only women, have been driven insane   
   by the stifling morality of society. It has created immense suffering in   
   human history.   
      
   When I speak of "meaningful life" I don't mean to say that all other   
   human life is worthless. I mean that people who have an impetus in   
   themselves, to manifest their inner nature, will experience life as   
   meaningless if they are confined within too narrow constraints. Such   
   people have an urge to live a meaningful life, whereas the majority just   
   take a seat on the train, visit all the stations in life, and then die.   
   Of course, their lives are probably meaningful in some religious sense,   
   but their lives aren't meaningful in the personal sense of the creative   
   individual. There are different variants of meaning.   
      
   I am not saying that it is self-evident to terminate the life of   
   fetuses, but nor is it self-evident to always let them live. We must   
   accept that life is wrought with difficult moral problems, and we cannot   
   always expect  to make easy decisions according to ready-made rules. If   
   the fetus has a serious genetic disease, such as Down's syndrom, etc., I   
   would find it easier to take this decision. But if such a child were   
   born, I would be capable of loving it.   
      
   But don't swallow the fundamentalist argument, that abortion is always   
   wrong. We are unceasingly taking the lives of living beings. A pig, for   
   instance, is a vastly more intelligent creature than a fetus, and it has   
   a full spectrum of feelings. Don't elevate human beings to divine   
   creatures that under no circumstances can be put to death, whereas other   
   living creatures can be killed as if they had no value at all.   
      
   Mats Winther   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)