regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/12/85)
> 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? Well, even in other countries, cosmetic surgery is allowed. What is the essential difference between amputating a healthy limb and removing cells of fatty tissue and extra skin (a "body-lift")? One is more "pleasing"? Doesn't seem like a reason to me. Let's not go off the deep end an relate this unrelated discussion question to anybody's position on abortion, o.k.? > 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? These are two different issues (1. getting "rid" of the fetus, and 2. ensuring it doesn't survive). In early abortions, they correlate highly. In later abortions (9th month?) I suggest they don't. I also don't think that people who believe in one therefore necessarily believe in the other. > (other stuff about taking absolutes to logical conclusions). Abortion on demand isn't the logical endpoint of this discussion. It is a mid-point. Abortion required by government is the endpoint of the continuum that has abortion prohibited by government on it's other end. >Matt Rosenblatt Adrienne Regard