kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (05/09/85)
Even # of >'s = me, odd # = Paul Torek >>>> Siamese twins form together; they have joint ownership of the organs >>>> they share. Thus for one to force the other to undergo an operation >>>> involving the shared organs involves an infringement of the other's >>>> rights. But fetuses, on the other hand, form after their mothers[...] >>> >>>"I was here first"? Why should the temporal order matter? > >> Because if it doesn't matter, the fetus can have ownership of that >> which it neither produced, traded for, or was given. If the temporal >> ordering does not matter, a powerful disambiguating rule is lost. > >But if it *does* matter, people *still* can have ownership of that >which they neither produced, traded for, or were given. If ownership >can be established on the basis of being there first, an explorer >(for example) can claim land which he reached which he neither produced, >traded for, nor was given. Sorry about the incomplete definition... But you've successfully rebutted only its incompleteness. (See my next point, below.) > Temporal order may provide a powerful >disambiguating rule, Which is required in order for your rebuttal to work, else why does a claim of "being there first" have any legitimacy? > but so does "whatever Ubizmo says, is right" >-- there may be no ambiguity, but the principle just isn't plausible. Why is it implausible? >>> Your other point, about ownership, is more convincing. But [...] >>> how does one determine ownership? [...] >>One determines ownership in the above case by temporal ordering. > >I don't think that's a convincing basis. (See above.) Try again? [ ... ] >>> There is a better explanation of why most people would judge the >>>kidney transplant case differently from the Siamese-twin-separation case >>>(i.e., why they would favor the "right to life" in the Siamese twin case >>>and the "right to control one's body" in the kidney case). Namely, most >>>people seem to think a person has a right to be left undisturbed from the >>>natural, ordinary situation in which they find themselves. > >> But the women I've known who have been accidentally pregnant have not >> been "undisturbed" by it. > >But the disturbance is (generally) self-induced. To clarify what I meant >above, insert the words "by others" after "undisturbed". Isn't the unwillingly pregnant woman disturbed by the presence of the fetus from the "natural, ordinary situation" in which she finds herself? Or are you saying that people should just put up with whatever happens to them? (Which would imply that our anscestors should never have come down from the trees...) > Note that this >intuitively plausible principle, Why does intuitive plausibility make good moral principle? Whose intuition, anyway? (It's not "intuitively plausible" to me.) > which I think explains most people's >judgements very well, would justify a right to abortion in the case of >rape. How is the situation of a fetus conceived due to a rape any different from that of a fetus conceived in more reasonable circumstances? > Thus it is bogus to allege, as has often been done, that a "pro-lifer" >cannot allow for such an exception. > >>> Thus, by this principle, [*]if[*] the fetus counts as a moral-equivalent- >>> of-a-person, then it has the right not to be aborted. >>Really? How does this follow? > >Because to abort it is to "disturb" it (in a way that harms it) "from the >natural, ordinary situation in which [it] finds [itself]". What right does it necessarily have to be left alone in this situation, since it is, by its very existence, not leaving the woman alone? >>> I am saying that as long as you argue on an "intuitive" level, ... most >>> people are going to disagree with you. [...] Of course, you can always >>> argue that the "intuitive" judgements most people have are wrong. > >> Sorry if I've been unclear, but I espouse the principle that each person >> has the right to be left alone, *until* he/she initiates violation of the >> same right of someone else; thus I don't see how your conclusion follows. > >I stand by my above statement, and don't see the relevance of yours. Maybe >you mean that your principle is one that most people intuitively accept? I don't see how an axiomatic right is an "intuitive" principle. But no, I don't mean what you said; in fact, I don't care what most people think (or "intuitively accept") except in cases where I have to defend myself against some implementation of what they think. > I >say that: either you must interpret your principle in a way that makes it >agree with the priciple I said underlies most people's judgements, or most >people are going to disagree with you. Why does their alleged disagreement mandate that I must do *any* particular thing? (Is this just an instantiation of the 'might makes right' negation of morality?) If their disagreement doesn't mandate action (or self-restraint) on my part, how is it relevant? BTW, I sense a hint of argument by intimidation (not to mention social metaphysics) here in all of the harping about what "most people" allegedly accept/agree with. >> Animals which come under protection laws don't live inside persons' >> bodies. Thus [?] it is reasonable to protect them. (I would find it >> absurd to protect an animal which had to live in a person's body. >> Would you go for protection of, say, liver flukes, Paul?) > >I stand by my statement that, if you support any animal protection laws >whatsoever, you have to fly in the face of a lot of pro-choice rhetoric. >If I don't believe that there is anything wrong with it, why can't I >torture a cat/dog/etc if I want to, just for the heck of it? You can't torture a cat ethically (under normal circumstances) because it hasn't violated your rights (unlike an unwanted fetus, which does not have permission to be where it is). N.B.: I don't buy the line about abortion being a form of torture. > Are you >going to (HORRORS! SHUDDER!) *impose* other morals on me?? Probably less than the anti-choice people would like to impose on others... > As far as >liver flukes, again you are picking non-sentient or barely-sentient >animals. Use an absurd critter to show up an absurd contention... :-) > I only support protection of sentient animals (in proportion >to their sentience; thus dogs and cats come above birds and below >chimps). Do you think that the mind of a fetus contains more information/ reasoning ability/etc. than a dog or cat? Where did the fetus get this without having contact with the outside world? If fetuses are sentient, why does it take so many months for babies to learn to form even two-word sentences? I gather that you would place a human fetus above chimps in your hierarchy (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). But why is a mature dog or cat less sentient than a human fetus? >> [Ken then considers my definition of "rights". We have no disagree- >> ment left except that I want to point out that] Not so fast. Rights are axiomatic. Do you completely agree with this statement? BTW, what exactly is the "third side" of the abortion issue? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]