Re: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

Jim writes:
<< It doesn't necessarily follow that though a fetus is "fully and entirely
human" that it is deserving of the "same legal and other rights and
protections." An already born child doesn't have all the same rights and
protections as a fully grown adult (though, of course, we can't kill them at
will no matter how much we may want to at times). >>

I wasn't talking about voting or bankruptcy protection, of course. The
sorts of legal protection I had in mind are the sorts that a just-born child
has in GREATER abundance than an adult.

And perhaps reference to law just muddles things. Whatever sanctity is
ascribed to humanity includes fully or excludes (with qualifications) the
fetus based upon when it is considered to have Become.

Jim writes:
<< Our law actually suffers Multiple Personality Disorder in relationship to
this issue. We can't execute a pregnant woman because it would kill the
unborn child, but the woman can terminate the pregnancy. >>

A murderer of a pregnant woman can also be charged with double-murder;
though, so far as I know, someone like an abusive husband who otherwise
violently destroys a fetus without killing the woman can be charged under
some other specific laws, but not homicide.

Also:
<< Some argue that by preventing its "becoming" you have still ended the
life of a human being. >>

This seems silly to me. There are certainly different degrees of
potentiality (and perhaps a line needs to be drawn between the protected and
unprotected ones), but lesser ones are "prevented" all the time. Of course,
some see "spilling seed upon the ground" to be a violation of sanctity, too,
so I guess one never knows.

And:
<< Of course, if you define "fully human" as "one who has full legal
protection," well, fine, but immigrants and visitors to most foreign
countries are not fully human, then.>>

Of course I didn't mean to suggest such a definition.

And:
<< What is further interesting is that in Mosaic law there's a monetary
penalty for striking a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry, while if
you strike a woman and kill her you're treated as a murderer [. . . .]
[T]his example provides a clear differentiation between the value of the
life of the mother and the value of the life of the unborn child -- and this
in a culture that later produced a poet who could claim God knew him from
his mother's womb. There's no reference I know of to abortion in the Hebrew
Scriptures, though [. . . .] >>

If the poet and the law are at odds (though I don't think that they are --
assertions and suggestions at the core and periphery of the same culture
suggest God's personal knowledge from well before even the womb), it should
be remembered how much change this culture underwent, particularly in how it
valued individual lives, just in the time between David and the
Deuteronomist. Taking the ends even further in both directions, to Moses
and the Sages, or Abraham and the Qabalists, brings this to even greater
clarity. The depth of the warrior-culture on the one hand, and "to kill a
man is to destroy the world and to deny God" on the other. We see a culture
that, until the Deuteronomist, apparently didn't squirm TOO much to see the
founder of the divinely-elected dynasty on his deathbed giving a mafia-style
hit-list, and we see that much later and under different circumstances, in
or around the very same city, it produces "turn the other cheek" (perhaps
after some degree of Greek confluence, but the extent is not clear).

In any case, the interpretation of Jewish law permits abortion if the
woman's life is at risk, and some authorities accept it for social reasons
as well. The Sages taught that a fetus becomes fully human only upon
emerging from the womb.

(And for what it's worth, abortion is legal -- and very often free -- in
modern Israel. The army provides free abortions for female soldiers, as
well, I believe. There are conditions and abortion requires application,
which embarassment is probably why so many illegal abortions are performed,
though something like 96% of applications are approved. Existing laws
against the unapproved abortions are not enforced. There has been some
attempt to write into law the assertion that human life begins at
conception, thus allowing prosecution of abortionists as murderers, but this
has failed. Though there is some Orthodox opposition to abortion, it hinges
on the rabinnic question of destroying the seed -- not murder. Rabbinic law
does allow abortion under certain circumstances. By most measures the
controversey is nothing like it is in America, and the biggest and loudest
group opposing the practice are Messianics: Israeli Christians.)

Jim writes:
<< Because, as you point out, everyone already thinks it is wrong to kill a
human being, the real question is, "who is human and who is not?" >>

Exactly.

And:
<< It's not clear, though, how all this bears upon your notion of common
sense. I don't see how it helps at all in this discussion. >>

I meant it as an obvious example of how the same common sense can lead to
different conclusions. It's definitely been enough on the issue of
abortion, though, and probably more than enough on the issue of common
sense.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Jul 19 19:32:50 2003