pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/29/85)
In article <62@uscvax.UUCP> kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >In article <464@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) writes: >>The fetus does not conceive itself. Two other people conceive it. Except >>in the case of rape, one can't say 'I had no choice in the matter; this is >>being forced upon me'. If the fetus is human, you have no right to make it >>leave your body at the cost of its life, since you were one of the people who >>put it there and killing it would be a violation of its rights. >You are talking out of both sides of your hat. First you say that except for >the case of rape a woman is responsible for conception. Mr. Newton did not say the women was responsible. He said things like "since you were one of the people who put it there" and "Two other people conceive it". It takes two people to cause conception. They are both responsible. >Are there no gray levels? >Then you start using legal analogies. The law is filled with ideas >that address subtle differences in circumstances. It uses concepts such as >"intent", "reasonable doubt", "ordinary care", etc. So, let me mix together >the two sides of your hat: What if two people did everything within their >power not to conceive and their method(s) of contraception failed. From a >legal perspective they had no intent, and used extraordinary care to prevent >conception. Are they really responsible for circumstances beyond their >control? Legally the answer would probably be no. So what if I uses every precaution to prevent a shooting accident but the gun goes off anyway? There is no intent and extraordinary care was used. Am I not still responsible for whoever or whatever my gun hits? The same can be said for driving a car. When two cars collide, by definition someone is at fault. If no driving infraction occurred then the collision would not have happened. You may take the greatest care and have the best of intentions, but a gust of wind or a patch of ice (circumstances beyond your control) may cause your vehicle to leave the road and hit a bystander. You are still responsible for their medical expenses (and maybe more). There are gray areas where contributory negligence is involved, but I don't see how a fetus can be guilty of contributory negligence. NOTE: Abortion seems irresponsible only if you believe the fetus is a living human being. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk (Paul W. Karber)
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (11/05/85)
Keywords: In article <680@ccice2.UUCP> pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) writes: >>The law is filled with ideas >>that address subtle differences in circumstances. It uses concepts such as >>"intent", "reasonable doubt", "ordinary care", etc. ... >>What if two people did everything within their >>power not to conceive and their method(s) of contraception failed. From a >>legal perspective they had no intent, and used extraordinary care to prevent >>conception. Are they really responsible for circumstances beyond their >>control? Legally the answer would probably be no. > >So what if I uses every precaution to prevent a shooting accident >but the gun goes off anyway? There is no intent and extraordinary >care was used. Am I not still responsible for whoever or whatever my >gun hits? The same can be said for driving a car. When two cars >collide, by definition someone is at fault. If no driving infraction >occurred then the collision would not have happened. You may take >the greatest care and have the best of intentions, but a gust of >wind or a patch of ice (circumstances beyond your control) may >cause your vehicle to leave the road and hit a bystander. You are >still responsible for their medical expenses (and maybe more). >There are gray areas where contributory negligence is involved, >but I don't see how a fetus can be guilty of contributory negligence. > >NOTE: Abortion seems irresponsible only if you believe the fetus is >a living human being. > Legally if you were taking all the precautions required by law in handling either your gun or your automobile, you would not be guilty of a crime. There might be some cause for a civil suit but not a criminal suit.