matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/30/85)
In article 1494, RICH ROSEN writes: > One way to look at rights is to claim that they are "granted" to you by > people in power. That's what legal rights are, as opposed to moral rights. > Another way to look at them is to say that there are > certain obvious things available to an autonomous life form, and that to > form a society you place restrictions on people that limit universal > rights. So far, so good -- although who, if not society, decides what is "obvious"? > Such as allowing people to do what they will within the limits > of not harming other people. Here's the heart of our disagreement. I recognize that this is your main principle, but I don't agree that is an absolute guide for society in framing legal rights. I think it is perfectly moral for society to ban heroin use, or prostitution, and I think it would be moral for society to ban abortion-on-demand EVEN IF "killing the fetus" were NOT "harming other people." I think it would be moral for society to ban the killing and eating of animals, although I would not agree with such a ban. But even those who accept your main principle do not have to come to your conclusion about abortion. Who decides what "harming" means? Can it include merely offending others, as flashers or posters of sexist pinups or racist symbols do? Can it include mere economic harm, like refusing to buy from someone whose politics (or race) you don't like? Whatever it means, "harming" surely includes "killing." And who decides what "people" means? I'm not going to rehash all the arguments in net.abortion over whether the fetus is a "person." My point is that these arguments exist, on both sides, and even a society that agrees that a citizen can do anything he wants to as long as he does not harm other people can reasonably conclude that killing a fetus is harming a person and therefore not a right to be recognized. >> One million abortions a year is pretty awful, but it's still better than the >> 1.5 million abortions now being performed legally under the 1973 all-male >> Supreme Court's grant of a woman's right to abort her fetus. (ROSENBLATT) > > "Pretty awful"? Perhaps you and Newton and Wheeler should get together and > form the "We've proved abortion is wrong by assuming it's wrong" League. > . . . Given your assumption > that abortions are horrible as part of your proof that it is, I'd say you > don't have much of an idea what rights are about. Nor do you seem to care. > (RICH ROSEN) When I write that one million abortions a year is pretty awful, that is not part of any "proof" -- it's my opinion. Nor am I trying to "prove" that abortions are horrible. What I am trying to show is that a pro-choice argument based on "who are you to tell her how her body is to be used?" and "The point is that it's a woman's right to remove things from her body that she doesn't want inside of it." assumes things that so directly imply pro-choice that it proves nothing to one who is not already pro-choice. >> Does he believe that they [women] have that right because of some >> "natural law"? Then he has to show why his version of such a natural >> law is correct, rather than versions that would have the woman's right >> to control her body running a poor third behind the fetus's right to >> live off that body for nine months, and the father's right to have >> the children he begot born. (MATT ROSENBLATT) > > The question of rights boils > down to "Who's to stop you?" (RICH ROSEN) I agree. Once something is made illegal, you have no *legal* right to do it, and someone (i.e., the police with their guns) will stop you. > The fight for rights is a fight to squelch those > who would. (RICH ROSEN) I agree with that, too. The right-to-lifers, who have nothing at all to gain personally from saving fetuses from abortion, are fighting to squelch those who have made it legal to interfere with the fetus's right to life. > The other "versions of natural law" you describe involve > others' usurping of personal rights, and thus it is YOU my friend who would > have to justify such "other versions". Yes, I *would* have to justify my ordering of the relative rights of the pregnant woman, the fetus, and the father. Anyone with a moral system who is trying to convince others of its validity would have to justify it to an outsider. My point is that that includes Rich Rosen, too. His moral system, which includes > rights to do > whatever one wishes that doesn't harm other people, and *postulates* "personal rights" that the banning of abortion "usurp[s]," also has to be justified. If it were self-evident, it would be self-evident even to me and the other pro-lifers, including those in State legislatures who will soon be deciding what limits to put on abortion. At the risk of boring our readers, let me repeat what I wrote on July 25: If Rich Rosen wants to keep society from banning abortions again, it's not enough for his arguments to be good enough to convince the feminists (both pro-life and pro-choice) in netnewsland. They've got to be good enough to convince the anti-feminist and neutral State legislatures out there, who wouldn't even pass the Equal Rights Amendment. In fact, it's kind of good that Mr. Rosen feels he doesn't have to justify his moral system, because if he could, he might convince some legislators to allow the abortions to continue. -- Matt Rosenblatt
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/30/85)
In article <269@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >I think it would be moral for society to ban the killing >and eating of animals, although I would not agree with such a ban. How can you expect us to take you seriously when you claim "banning abortions is moral and should be done" and then you turn around a wave your hand at another thing YOU consider immoral. Be consistant! Speaking of inconsistant morality, I noticed under "organization", you work for "Ballistics Research Lab." Weapons! You do weapons! HOW DARE YOU look down your "moral" nose at us "evil pro-choicers" while you earn your bread engineering death! First you claim that the state (even in a supposed democracy) can supress rights at will... and then you whine about killing fetus's while working for a company that makes arms... you're starting to sound like a Nazi, Mr. Rosenblatt. I suppose I'm in for a long letter describing how the "Ballistics Research Lab" actually studies flying pigs. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/01/85)
>> Another way to look at them is to say that there are >>certain obvious things available to an autonomous life form, and that to >>form a society you place restrictions on people that limit universal >>rights. >> Such as allowing people to do what they will within the limits >>of not harming other people. > Here's the heart of our disagreement. I recognize that this is your > main principle, but I don't agree that is an absolute guide for society > in framing legal rights. I think it is perfectly moral for society to > ban heroin use, or prostitution, and I think it would be moral for society > to ban abortion-on-demand EVEN IF "killing the fetus" were NOT "harming > other people." I think it would be moral for society to ban the killing > and eating of animals, although I would not agree with such a ban. That's a good definition of moral: an arbitrary restriction because we say so. Getting down to it, seriously, without the "I say so" crap, when the rubber hits the road, because I am an organism with volition and the ability to act, I can do whatever I want (that I am capable of doing). What prevents me from doing things? Practicality. (I can't fly under my own power.) Force and restraint of others. And/or, the fact that by agreeing to a certain set of rules as a member of society, I will (supposedly) be free of force and restraint and interference AND I will enjoy the benefits of the society. Skipping practicality (I don't think we need moral codes to tell people that they can't do what they're not capable of doing), that leaves force/restraint and agreement to a moral code. What is the purpose of the society? To provide benefits for its members. What right does a society have to take away "rights" from me? A limited right insofar as it makes regulations forbidding interference with other human beings, so as to maximize the benefits of the society. What other justification can you come up with, besides "we say so", to support any moral restriction? > But even those who accept your main principle do not have to come to your > conclusion about abortion. Who decides what "harming" means? Can it > include merely offending others, as flashers or posters of sexist pinups > or racist symbols do? Can it include mere economic harm, like refusing > to buy from someone whose politics (or race) you don't like? Whatever it > means, "harming" surely includes "killing." The definition of harm is precisely what debates on how far morality can go in terms of restriction should be all about. Instead, they have been clouded by other things as the debaters seem to have lost sight of that goal. Again, can you kill something that is not strictly alive? ... > And who decides what "people" means? I'm not going to rehash all the > arguments in net.abortion over whether the fetus is a "person." But you did bring it up. > My point > is that these arguments exist, on both sides, and even a society that > agrees that a citizen can do anything he wants to as long as he does not > harm other people can reasonably conclude that killing a fetus is harming > a person and therefore not a right to be recognized. You're not making the point you're making. (Paradox time. Colonel Klink? Call Colonel Hofstadter immediately!) You're assuming your conclusion (that the fetus is a person) as part of your argument while admitting that you don't have the answer to the question. >>>One million abortions a year is pretty awful, but it's still better than the >>>1.5 million abortions now being performed legally under the 1973 all-male >>>Supreme Court's grant of a woman's right to abort her fetus. (ROSENBLATT) >>"Pretty awful"? Perhaps you and Newton and Wheeler should get together and >>form the "We've proved abortion is wrong by assuming it's wrong" League. >>. . . Given your assumption >>that abortions are horrible as part of your proof that it is, I'd say you >>don't have much of an idea what rights are about. Nor do you seem to care. > When I write that one million abortions a year is pretty awful, that is not > part of any "proof" -- it's my opinion. Nor am I trying to "prove" that > abortions are horrible. What I am trying to show is that a pro-choice > argument based on > "who are you to tell her how her body is to be used?" and > "The point is that it's a woman's right to remove things > from her body that she doesn't want inside of it." > assumes things that so directly imply pro-choice that it proves nothing > to one who is not already pro-choice. If you can't back up your "opinion" when attempting to legislate it as morality, I suggest you back off. The argument boils down to more than that. It boils down to the weighing of priorities, and the evidence that the not-yet-living thing inside the woman's body, using her internal resources for sustenance, cannot logically take precedence over her own rights. To do so would make removal of tumors, or even viruses, illegal. Or are you just being arbitrary? >> The question of rights boils down to "Who's to stop you?" (RICH ROSEN) > I agree. Once something is made illegal, you have no *legal* right to do it, > and someone (i.e., the police with their guns) will stop you. But you have the legal right to change that law. And you have good grounds for doing so when the basis of that law is nothing but an arbitrary restriction of human rights. >> The fight for rights is a fight to squelch those who would. (RICH ROSEN) > I agree with that, too. The right-to-lifers, who have nothing at all to gain > personally from saving fetuses from abortion, are fighting to squelch those > who have made it legal to interfere with the fetus's right to life. But IS it a "right" to life? Does it have the right to usurp the body of another human being? If I cut open Ken Arndt's head and fit myself inside (easy task: the head is inflated in size so much that I could easily fit, and the lack of a brain leaves lots of empty space :-), attaching myself to his circulatory system, would Ken have the right to remove me? Of course he would. Even if my life depended on my continuous attachment. >> The other "versions of natural law" you describe involve >>others' usurping of personal rights, and thus it is YOU my friend who would >>have to justify such "other versions". > Yes, I *would* have to justify my ordering of the relative rights of the > pregnant woman, the fetus, and the father. Your own articles on "a man's right to procreate given by the Constitution" taking precedence over a woman's right to her own body (sexist? or just arbitrary again?) show how bogus your position is. > Anyone with a moral system > who is trying to convince others of its validity would have to justify it > to an outsider. My point is that that includes Rich Rosen, too. His moral > system, which includes >> rights to do >> whatever one wishes that doesn't harm other people, > > and *postulates* "personal rights" that the banning of abortion "usurp[s]," > also has to be justified. If it were self-evident, it would be self-evident > even to me and the other pro-lifers, including those in State legislatures > who will soon be deciding what limits to put on abortion. Perhaps the fact that is isn't is borne out by your preconceptions about precedence. I didn't think the owner of the body coming before other people or things sounded very "preconceptive" to me. > At the risk of > boring our readers, let me repeat what I wrote on July 25: If Rich Rosen > wants to keep society from banning abortions again, it's not enough for his > arguments to be good enough to convince the feminists (both pro-life and > pro-choice) in netnewsland. They've got to be good enough to convince > the anti-feminist and neutral State legislatures out there, who wouldn't > even pass the Equal Rights Amendment. In fact, it's kind of good that > Mr. Rosen feels he doesn't have to justify his moral system, because if > he could, he might convince some legislators to allow the abortions to > continue. As I mentioned in another article, the notion that an idea is only as right as the number of people who accept it is balderdash. The fact that the people who reject these notions engage in preconception of the shoddiest kind, ASSUMING the veracity of a religious book as the precedent of people's rights, ASSUMING tradition and "it's always been this way" as an arbiter of justice, etc. only shows what kind of leaders we've elected, and what kind of manipulation people have been subjected to to indoctrinate them in this way. You can't convince such people of much of anything within the realm of reason. They have blind faith in their own "correctness". Press them for answers, press them for evidence, and they'll call you names, or punch you in the face. So much for the weight of their position. But let's DO continue such pressing. They can only resort to obfuscation, bamboozlement, and further indoctrination for so long. -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/01/85)
.......... >> The question of rights boils >> down to "Who's to stop you?" [RICH ROSEN] > >I agree. Once something is made illegal, you have no *legal* right to do it, >and someone (i.e., the police with their guns) will stop you. [Rosenblatt] Dream on.... Keith Doyle
wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) (08/02/85)
More justification should be required to pass a
law which restricts an individual's freedom to do whatever he/she
pleases than not to pass such a law. Thus the onus of justification
should be on the pro-lifers to show it is necessary that abortions
be restricted.
There is a similar principle in science which states that
extraordinary proof must be provided for extraordinary claims. Thus
more evidence must be shown to prove that ESP exists than to prove
that objects will drop when you let them go.
In the case of abortion rights, the onus is on the one who
wishes to pass a law against abortion to show that it is the right
thing to do, not on the ones who would be adversely affected by such a
law to show that it shouldn't be passed; just as it is up to the
proposer of a scientific law to prove it is correct, not not the
skeptic to prove it false.
Jim Gordon, Jr.rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/02/85)
> More justification should be required to pass a > law which restricts an individual's freedom to do whatever he/she > pleases than not to pass such a law. Thus the onus of justification > should be on the pro-lifers to show it is necessary that abortions > be restricted. [JIM GORDON, SR.] BRA-VO!!! Thank you for so eloquently diffusing the arbitrary perspective of people like Rosenblatt who seem to think it's the other way around! > There is a similar principle in science which states that > extraordinary proof must be provided for extraordinary claims. Thus > more evidence must be shown to prove that ESP exists than to prove > that objects will drop when you let them go. You've obviously never read net.origins or the net.religion newsgroups, :-) where there are more than a few who don't understand this simple principle. (Recommended reading on the subject: Hofstadter's "World Views in Collision" article, originally from SciAm, reproduced in "Metamagical Themas") > In the case of abortion rights, the onus is on the one who > wishes to pass a law against abortion to show that it is the right > thing to do, not on the ones who would be adversely affected by such a > law to show that it shouldn't be passed; just as it is up to the > proposer of a scientific law to prove it is correct, not not the > skeptic to prove it false. Again, thank you. -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/02/85)
....... In response to Rosenblatt: >Speaking of inconsistant morality, I noticed under "organization", you >work for "Ballistics Research Lab." Weapons! You do weapons! HOW DARE >YOU look down your "moral" nose at us "evil pro-choicers" while you earn >your bread engineering death! > >Charles Forsythe Perhaps a commie is less human than a fetus. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/06/85)
RICH ROSEN writes: > What right does a > society have to take away "rights" from me? A limited right insofar as it > makes regulations forbidding interference with other human beings, so as > to maximize the benefits of the society. What other justification can you > come up with, besides "we say so", to support any moral restriction? OK, that's a fair question. What we're talking about is the so-called "police power" of the state, which is only indirectly related to "the police" as those who enforce the power of the state. The police power is the power the people have granted to the state to restrict people's freedoms in the interest of the "public health, safety, morals and welfare." (My definition comes from a 1936 Maryland case deciding that the state may not require paperhangers to obtain a license before practicing their trade.) In any given instance, we must weigh the freedoms being restricted against the good to be derived from restricting them. Quarantine is a pretty drastic restriction of freedom, but it is often justified by the need to protect the public health. Building codes tell you what you can and cannot do to the structure of your own private home, but they are justified by the public safety -- someday you may sell your home to someone who would be hurt by your illegal wiring or plumbing. Minimum wage laws are justified by the public welfare: If you can work for 25 cents an hour, you're driving down the wage level for everyone else in your line of work. It's in the area of the "public morals," whatever those are, that Mr. Rosen doesn't think society has the right to interfere with people's freedoms. He says that the ONLY legitimate reason for interfering with someone's freedom is to prevent him from harming some other person. He says the burden is always on those who want to restrict freedom, not on those who want to leave it alone. That's only partly correct. "It's always been this way" is not an "arbiter of justice," and I never said it was. However, current practice has an effect on the burden of proof, in the following way: The practical burden of changing the law is on the one who wants to change it. If he does nothing, the law remains as it is. As an example relevant to this net, current law allows abortion on demand through the sixth month of pregnancy, and (in most states) bans it after the sixth month, except to save the woman's life -- that's what the Roe v. Wade case decreed. Those who want to ban abortion on demand during the first six months have the burden of convincing the lawmaker to change the law; those who want to legalize it any time before birth also have the burden of convincing the lawmaker to do so. Once the validity of a "police-power" restriction on freedoms is challenged, then indeed the burden falls on those supporting the law to defend its restriction on freedom. This is done by a weighing process, and the people have been and are entitled to consider safety, health, welfare AND MORALS during this process. Government never has used, and is not required to use, Rich Rosen's rules in running the country -- we have a Constitution. >> But even those who accept your main principle do not have to come to your >> conclusion about abortion. Who decides what "harming" means? (ROSENBLATT) > > The definition of harm is precisely what debates on how far morality > can go in terms of restriction should be all about. Instead, they have > been clouded by other things as the debaters seem to have lost sight of > that goal. (RICH ROSEN) No argument here, Mr. Rosen. >> My point >> is that these arguments exist, on both sides, and even a society that >> agrees that a citizen can do anything he wants to as long as he does not >> harm other people can reasonably conclude that killing a fetus is harming >> a person and therefore not a right to be recognized. (MATT ROSENBLATT) > > You're not making the point you're making. (Paradox time. Colonel Klink? > Call Colonel Hofstadter immediately!) You're assuming your conclusion > (that the fetus is a person) as part of your argument while admitting that > you don't have the answer to the question. (RICH ROSEN) No, I'm not assuming that a fetus is a person. I'm assuming what I wrote, viz., that society can reasonably conclude that killing a fetus is harming a person. If society concludes, from scientific evidence or otherwise, that the fetus is a person with rights worth protecting (as the 1973 Court did about third-trimester fetuses), then even under Mr. Rosen's liberal rule, society can conclude that killing a fetus is harming a person and therefore not a legitimate right. Moreover, a lawmaker has certain duties and obligations in the case where he is NOT SURE whether allowing a given practice will harm the public health, safety, welfare and morals. But that's a subject for a net.abortion article all by itself. >> When I write that one million abortions a year is pretty awful, that is not >> part of any "proof" -- it's my opinion. (MATT ROSENBLATT) > If you can't back up your "opinion" when attempting to legislate it as > morality, I suggest you back off. The argument boils down to more than > that. It boils down to the weighing of priorities, and the evidence that > the not-yet-living thing inside the woman's body, using her internal > resources for sustenance, cannot logically take precedence over her > own rights. To do so would make removal of tumors, or even viruses, > illegal. Or are you just being arbitrary? (RICH ROSEN) Yes, it boils down to the weighing of priorities (including the father's rights, if any). No, I won't agree that the fetus is a not-yet-living thing -- that's an "ipse dixit" argument. Removal of tumors and viruses is legal, but: QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Is it legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a perfectly good arm or leg? (My answer: No, removing a healthy limb is mayhem, a crime not against the amputee but against the Queen's peace (or the state, in the USA), and the amputee's consent to, or even procurement of, deliberate mayhem will be no defense for the surgeon in a criminal trial for mayhem.) Should it be legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a healthy limb? Maybe the man can make more money in a circus if he has only one arm or leg. Maybe the person is in love with an "amputee fetishist" who will relate only to an amputee. Should it be his decision, since it's his own body? Or do we as a society feel that such a thing (as Fantine's selling her good teeth to a dentist in Hugo's "Les Miserables") should not be allowed to happen? >> Anyone with a moral system >> who is trying to convince others of its validity would have to justify it >> to an outsider. My point is that that includes Rich Rosen, too. His moral >> system, which includes >>> rights to do >>> whatever one wishes that doesn't harm other people, >> >> and *postulates* "personal rights" that the banning of abortion "usurp[s]," >> also has to be justified. If it were self-evident, it would be self-evident >> even to me and the other pro-lifers, including those in State legislatures >> who will soon be deciding what limits to put on abortion. (ROSENBLATT) > Perhaps the fact that is isn't is borne out by your preconceptions about > precedence. I didn't think the owner of the body coming before other > people or things sounded very "preconceptive" to me. (RICH ROSEN) The "owner of the body"'s right to do WHAT, as against WHAT rights of "other people or things"? The owner's right to do whatever he wants without hurting others is THE preconception of liberalism. Taken as an absolute, it leads to conclusions unacceptable to me and, I submit, probably unacceptable to most participants in this newsgroup, whether pro-life or pro-choice: How many advocate abortion on demand (including the "right" to ensure that the fetus does not survive) all the way through the ninth month of pregnancy? How many advocate legalizing heroin for recreational use? How many advocate legalizing sex between a consenting adult and a consenting ten-year-old? If a principle, taken as an absolute, sometimes leads to conclusions unacceptable to society, then society is within its rights not to take that principle as an absolute. Instead, society must carefully review each argument based on the principle, to see whether such arguments collide with other, possibly equally valid, principles. And if there is a collision, society must decide which principle to uphold. -- Matt Rosenblatt
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (08/07/85)
Matthew Rosenblatt: > QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: > > Is it legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a perfectly good arm > or leg? (My answer: No, removing a healthy limb is mayhem, a crime not > against the amputee but against the Queen's peace (or the state, in the USA), > and the amputee's consent to, or even procurement of, deliberate mayhem > will be no defense for the surgeon in a criminal trial for mayhem.) > > Should it be legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a healthy limb? > Maybe the man can make more money in a circus if he has only one arm or leg. > Maybe the person is in love with an "amputee fetishist" who will relate only > to an amputee. Should it be his decision, since it's his own body? Or do > we as a society feel that such a thing (as Fantine's selling her good teeth > to a dentist in Hugo's "Les Miserables") should not be allowed to happen? Assuming that this was not a rhetorical question: Yes, it should be legal for a man (or, gee, maybe even a woman... :-) ) to have a healthy limb amputated. And to take drugs, if no harm is caused to others. And to sell one's body for sexual purposes. And to commit suicide, for that matter. Certainly we should try to convince people not to do at least some of these things, or at least try to help them realize why they are doing this thing and perhaps that they do not have to do this thing. But no, I don't think any of these things should be legislated. And you apparently do, so you and I differ on a very fundamental issue. By the way, I do not advocate legalizing heroin only because the use of heroin almost inevitably leads to injuring others (stealing money for one's habit or doing something else illegal while under the influence of heroin), nor legalizing sex for ten-year-olds for reasons that I don't think need to be brought up here. I would like to know why you think prostitution, suicide, or amputation of a healthy limb should be illegal. (Seriously.) marie desjardins park
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/08/85)
> QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: > > Is it legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a perfectly good arm > or leg? (My answer: No, removing a healthy limb is mayhem, a crime not > against the amputee but against the Queen's peace (or the state, in the USA), > and the amputee's consent to, or even procurement of, deliberate mayhem > will be no defense for the surgeon in a criminal trial for mayhem.) > > Should it be legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a healthy limb? Related question: Does it matter if it is legal or not for a man to have a healthy limb aputated? (in other words, will it stop him?). > The "owner of the body"'s right to do WHAT, as against WHAT rights of > "other people or things"? The owner's right to do whatever he wants > without hurting others is THE preconception of liberalism. Taken as > an absolute, it leads to conclusions unacceptable to me and, I submit, > probably unacceptable to most participants in this newsgroup, whether > pro-life or pro-choice: How many advocate abortion on demand (including > the "right" to ensure that the fetus does not survive) all the way > through the ninth month of pregnancy? How many advocate legalizing > heroin for recreational use? How many advocate legalizing sex between > a consenting adult and a consenting ten-year-old? I don't have any particular problem with any of these, except perhaps the issue of whether or not a ten-year-old *can* actually be consenting. > If a principle, taken as an absolute, sometimes leads to conclusions > unacceptable to society, then society is within its rights not to take > that principle as an absolute. Instead, society must carefully review > each argument based on the principle, to see whether such arguments > collide with other, possibly equally valid, principles. And if there > is a collision, society must decide which principle to uphold. > > -- Matt Rosenblatt I would be inclined to replace the term 'society' with 'individuals' in this paragraph. The term 'society' as used here seems a little too socialist for my taste. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
galenr@iddic.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (08/14/85)
In article <771@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >> QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: >> >> Is it legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a perfectly good arm >> or leg? (My answer: No, removing a healthy limb is mayhem, a crime not >> against the amputee but against the Queen's peace (or the state, in the USA), >> and the amputee's consent to, or even procurement of, deliberate mayhem >> will be no defense for the surgeon in a criminal trial for mayhem.) >> >> Should it be legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a healthy limb? > >Related question: > >Does it matter if it is legal or not for a man to have a healthy limb >aputated? (in other words, will it stop him?). If that's a related question, is this one related too? Does it matter if it is legal or not for a woman to have a healthy fetus removed? (in other words, will it stop her?) Boy, we sure got some incredible minds at work!! Warm regards, Galen.