dcs@homxa.UUCP (D.SIMEN) (07/26/84)
From Robert A. Pease (punctuation and grammatical errors reproduced): > Lets say that you, Rick, and I are visitors from another world. (I have > a reason for starting off with this.) We come to Earth as friends on a > Holiday. We decide to go mountain climbing, and during the excursion, I > happen to fall and damage both my kidneys. You, being the good friend > you are, rush me to a hospital where the only living physician on ET > biology informs you that the only way to save my life is for you to donate > one of your kidneys to me. Its no big deal to us, your kidney would grow > back in a few months anyway, but I don't have that long. > > Now, clearly, my life depends on you donating your kidney to me. But for > whatever reason, you decide that you don't want to even though it would > mean my life. Now, we have a situation where my right to life is directly > dependent on you giving up your right to control what happens to your own > body. In this case, which right prevails? My right to life, or your > right to control what happens to your own body? As for any ethical question, the solution to this one depends on the personal ethics of the individual. For me, any attempt to force Rick to donate part of his body, or to undergo any medical procedure whatsoever in order to help you, is immoral and unethical. In other words, he most certainly does have the right to control his own body, even though you will surely die because he exercises this right. Incidentally, I applied this answer not to you (whom I do not know) but to my 4-month-old baby boy, whom, after my wife, I love more than anyone else in the world. Suppose he could be saved from death only by your donating a pint of blood to him -- no-one else's blood will do. YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE AND UNCOMPROMISABLE RIGHT TO SAY NO. Naturally, you would earn my undying hatred. Clearly, you would be the lowest of the low (and then some) to refuse. But I would have NO right to force you to donate your blood. The same goes for Rick the ET -- he is obviously not a friend at all if he is unwilling to suffer a minor inconvenience for the sake of your life, but the decision is his, not yours. David Simen ...!houxm!homxa!dcs
hawk@oliven.UUCP (07/28/84)
My intent in my original submission was not to defend the pro-life position itself, but to show that it is not necessarily an attempt to force one's beliefs onto another. (Although, if someone takes the pro-life position *only* because their church/parents/whosamasudge tells them they should, and not because *they personally* have come to the conclusion that the fetus should have rights, it probably is an attempt to inflict beliefs.) I will, however, respond to your example early next week in net.abortion, although I would leave any arguments about the pro-life position being an attempt to inflict beliefs in this group. -- hawk (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
rap@oliven.UUCP (07/31/84)
. >At this point, it would seem that the right to choose to have an abortion >should exist if the fetus is not a person and has no rights, and should not >exist if the fetus is a person and has rights. Agreed? I think that I may have a situation in mind that would place doubt on that statement. --- >Rights don't exist because they are inherent in man or because God said so, >they exist by convention. [Thus, at this point in time, there is plain and >simply not a right to life for the unborn.] These conventions are made by >whoever is in a position to make them. In this country, it is the people >through their elected officials. This is a very true statement. However, let me relay this situation to you and tell me what you think of it. Lets say that you, Rick, and I are visitors from another world. (I have a reason for starting off with this.) We come to Earth as friends on a Holiday. We decide to go mountain climbing, and during the excursion, I happen to fall and damage both my kidneys. You, being the good friend you are, rush me to a hospital where the only living physician on ET biology informs you that the only way to save my life is for you to donate one of your kidneys to me. Its no big deal to us, your kidney would grow back in a few months anyway, but I don't have that long. Now, clearly, my life depends on you donating your kidney to me. But for whatever reason, you decide that you don't want to even though it would mean my life. Now, we have a situation where my right to life is directly dependent on you giving up your right to control what happens to your own body. In this case, which right prevails? My right to life, or your right to control what happens to your own body? -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
hawk@oliven.UUCP (08/02/84)
[Followups have been routed to net.abortion {I think}]
> Lets say that you, Rick, and I are visitors from another world. (I have
> a reason for starting off with this.) We come to Earth as friends on a
> Holiday. We decide to go mountain climbing, and during the excursion, I
> happen to fall and damage both my kidneys. You, being the good friend
> you are, rush me to a hospital where the only living physician on ET
> biology informs you that the only way to save my life is for you to donate
> one of your kidneys to me. Its no big deal to us, your kidney would grow
> back in a few months anyway, but I don't have that long.
>
> Now, clearly, my life depends on you donating your kidney to me. But for
> whatever reason, you decide that you don't want to even though it would
> mean my life. Now, we have a situation where my right to life is directly
> dependent on you giving up your right to control what happens to your own
> body. In this case, which right prevails? My right to life, or your
> right to control what happens to your own body?
In this case, 1) I have a moral obligation to donate a kidney, but 2) you have
no right to demand this action from me.
The problem with this analogy is that it is confusing positive and negative
rights. [philosopher's sideline: a positive right is a right to have
something done, while a negative right is the right not to have something done
to you.] Your right to my kidney would be a positive right, a fetus's right
not to be aborted would be a negative right?
How 'bout this example?
You and I are again creatures from another planet and have encountered one
another while mountain climbing. I fall, and damage my kidneys, and due to
the biology of our people, when you brush against my open wound while reaching
over to help me up, a symbiotic attachment occurs (as in Siamese twins). The
only way to disconnect us is through surgery or upon of our deaths. It will
now take you months instead of a couple of days to climb back down the
mountain so that you can reach a surgeon. Now, my right to life has become
dependent on your giving up control of your body. Do you have the right to
shoot me? After all, I could not survive alone and you didn't ask to have me
attached to you.
--
hawk (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC)
[hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk