Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:17:29 -0800
From: bill hard <billhard-AT-netwizards.net>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Abortion & Human Nature


It is interesting to observe that this topic has elicited 70 or 80 posts in
just a couple of days. Probably because it involves natural human emotions
that don't require a PhD  (which sometimes leads to obfuscation in any
case). That being the case, I'd like to weigh in. I enjoyed the posts, and
find myself most comfortable with Hugh and Yoshi's take. (though I don't
necessarily expect they, or anyone, to feel comfortable with mine.

Abortion is as old as the human species. Although we can't get into the head
of one of our early progenitors, it is unlikely that the mechanisms for
moral choice were any different than those of today. The should or should
not of carrying a child in an economically stressed tribe was probably not
an uncommon event, whether or not "moral significance" was attached to the
decision. It was, as someone may have posted, more of an existential or
pragmatic decision. This does NOT mean that it was without emotional
feelings,  which could have been everything from relief to sadness and remorse.

There seems to be a tendency by many on this board (as well as all others)
to search for moral absolutes. There seems to be an instinctive aversion to
moral relativism. Perhaps our minds, as pattern makers, lead us to formulate
rules. They have proved quite useful to societal cohesion. They are
particularly useful to totalitarian ones.

I suspect that many so-called Marxists unconsciously believe that the
Hobbesian notion of "human nature" is essentially correct, that we as humans
are:  egocentric, greedy, possessive, covetous, idolatrous, lecherous,
conceited, "jealous, stubborn, rebellious, antisocial, hateful to all who
invade their personal space, homicidal, striving for inequality, and trying
to outdo everyone else."! Some will say it is our ability to reason  and
devise formulas to repress or deflect these "urges" that enable a society to
function. Meanwhile behavior exhibiting: desire to share, cooperation, love
for others, empathy, instincts for conflict resolution, feelings of "fair
play", fear and discomfort in being isolated & alone, are all but ignored.
My claim is that they ALL are part of the constellation under a rubric
called "human nature". As Robert Wright observes: "Friendship, affection,
trust - these are the things that, long before people signed contracts, long
before they wrote down laws, held human society together." 

Some will argue that the termination of slavery was the result of an
enlightened culture, enlightened through ideas and reason. Well maybe. But
not enough credit has been given to good old "human nature". Once the slave
was recognized as Human, the sensations of trust, sympathy, empathy, etc.
could seep in. In any way, the "enemy" must be dehumanized. How long did it
take for women to get the vote. Wasn't the rationalization given that they
were somehow less than=85?

I maintain human nature is US. If permitted to express itself it will do
just fine. Suppress or mold it into some socially "beneficial" conception,
and we are going to get in big trouble. Arguments about whether dislodging a
petri dish from a lab top containing a cloned or "natural" potential fetus
should be manslaughter are intellectual exercises. We start with feelings.
If it can be shown, for example, that at a certain stage of development a
fetus suffers, that will kick in my "human nature" and I will modify my
thinking. (So far I know of no one who can describe the experience. I can't
remember anything prior to one year old).

In the meantime I would place my confidence and trust in any woman who can
do the same with regard to carrying a baby.

bill





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---