matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/08/85)
> One cannot burn one's own house because it endangers other homes, and > because people often do it to claim insurance. In my town, residents > are not even allowed to burn leaves because of the smoke. One > can, however, hire a demolision company to destroy one's home if the > proper permits are obtained. One cannot burn one's dog because it > causes the dog undue pain, however one can have one's dog put to > death by a licensed veterinarian. I don't see how any of this implies > that abortions should be restricted, only that it be performed by a > licensed doctor and this is already the case. (JIM GORDON, JR.) None of this implies that abortions *should* be restricted, but your own explanation of possible reasons for the laws refutes the idea that the maxim "possession is nine points [NB: not 'tenths'] of the law" gives an owner the right to do whatever he wants with something he owns or possesses unless it *would* cause harm to another human being. In the case of the building, it's *possible* harm to other people, not even sure harm, that justifies the restriction. (And by the way, my house in Baltimore is in a historical district. I can't do anything to change its outward appearance without a permit, and you can be sure the Commission on Historical and Architectural Preservation is not going to permit me to create a gaping hole in the facade of row houses on my block by demolishing my house. That's a restriction purely on aesthetic grounds, and if you want my justification for it, I'll be happy to give it to you privately.) In the case of the dog, the justification is harm to a being that is not even human. > It is up to the ones who wish to pass a law which restricts freedoms > to justify the necessity of such a law to the proper functioning of > society or prove that the action so restricted causes undue harm to an > individual. In the latter case, the intellegence of the being harmed > is definitely a factor. For example, it is not against the law to > smash flies which are bothersome. As the intelligence of an > individual increases, the amount of harm allowed decreases. > (JIM GORDON, JR.) > A second meaning of "life" is the set or continuum of experiences > that a creature with intelligence and emotions (etc.) has while it > exists. > I feel that it is "life" of the second meaning that is truly > >important<, when applied to homo-sapiens. "Life" of the first meaning > is not important, rather it is >necessary<, somewhat as paying the > rent and buying groceries is necessary. (BRIAN PETERSON) It's not surprising how often "intelligence" is mentioned on this net as a consideration in deciding whether a particular biologically living thing deserves protection. After all, we subscribers consider ourselves intelligent beings: We know how to log onto a computer, and even how to read and type (and often spell) English correctly. But tall people might consider height a criterion; strong people might consider strength a criterion (remember the Spartans?); racists might consider ancestry and snobs economic status as criteria (you've all read the "justifications" of abortion so there won't be too many of "them" born); Chinese might consider sex a criterion (newborn girls have been killed there for centuries, and the new forced-abortion-after-one-child policies there have led to a revival of the practice); and anthropologist Virginia Abernathy of Vanderbilt University's School of Medicine thinks that an individual becomes a person only when he becomes a responsible moral agent -- around age 3 or 4, in her judgment, and defective children, such as those with Down's syndrome, may never become persons (Newsweek magazine, January 14, 1985, page 29). > Other people might place different values on the two meanings of > life I described here . . . (BRIAN PETERSON) And how! And if you don't want their values imposed on you when and if your intelligence wanes with age, you'd better think before allowing an intelligent adult to impose his will, fatally, on an unintelligent fetus. -- Matt Rosenblatt ---------- "Merciful men, the sons of merciful men! How long will you let this cruelty continue?"