From: "Sheila Walters" <swalters-AT-odu.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:35:01 EST
Subject: M-TH: (Fwd) personhood & marx


Forwarded message:
From:     Self <TEAL/SWALTERS>
To: marxism-thaxis-AT-jefferson.village.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: personhood & marx
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:28:35 EST

I'd really enjoy discussing all the tangents of this abortion issue,
but the topic seems to have lost most of its relevance to Marxism.  
And the thing is, my determination to understand Marxism and use
it are the only reasons I subscribed to these lists.  So let me start
a thread that isn't very likely to deviate from a Marxist focus.

Having said that, I think I should tell you that I'm relatively new 
to the study of Marx  (few mos.) and it's a hit and miss effort  -
self-education with no formal plan, makes it a slow road.  Plus, I'm 
not accustomed to writing stuff (having spent most of my adult life 
as an actress, a temp, and a waitress, I've had no time to learn 
about much else)  - I'm not really afraid that I won't make myself 
clear, but I do hope you'll limit your attacks on me to constructive 
criiticism rather than style or ulterior motive.  I belong to no 
party, have no personal agenda here to convert anyone to any beliefs, 
and am open to re-examining my current opinions.

Now to the point.  It seems to me (I think I'm using some Marxist
method here; correct me if I'm not...) that our concern w/regard
to creating a morally valid definition of personhood is a matter of
analyzing truely **tangible** existance of any human in question
(i.e. a fetus) to real **society** (outside the womb).  And as I see
it, the fetus doesn't substantially exist in society.  - I'm not 
saying that the fetus doesn't exist at all  of course or that its
existence is unimportant;  obviously fetuses exist and humanity
would cease to exist without them.  But they're physically not
involved in society.  We never hear a fetus laugh out loud, scream
piercingly, cook meals for friends for friends or family, or even eat
those cooked meals, it doesn't fight with siblings, gossip, or 
what-have-you.  OK, you get the picture.  So my logic leads me
to conclude that *morally* (that is if I use **Marxism** as my tool
for creating a useful moral   - this one being a moral definition
of personhood - ), a fetus holds no position worth considering.

So I ask you all, does Marxist theory suggest anywhere that our
social morals should be based on what we agree to be "nice or
not nice" or even sentimentally compassionate?  Or maybe on
society's relationships to ideas (as opposed to external events
and experiences)?  Everything that crowds our heads on this
topic,  all that a fetus *symbolizes*, I think we should be very
critical of.  These emotionally-packed thoughts are more likely
than not to distract us from coming up with the best choices
in developing Marxist positions.  Morals don't just exist like the
trees do or the sun and the moon;  humans are the creators
of morals.  I think most of us on this list want to develop strong
Marxist societies   - and if we do want to, shouldn't we focus
together on using Marxism to formulate useful positions for
difficult questions?  Any suggestions?  Comments?


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