esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (04/10/85)
Odd # of >'s = kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery), even # = me (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. Temporal order may provide a powerful disambiguating rule, but so does "whatever Ubizmo says, is right" -- there may be no ambiguity, but the principle just isn't plausible. >> 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.) >> 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". Note that this intuitively plausible principle, which I think explains most people's judgements very well, would justify a right to abortion in the case of rape. 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]". >> 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 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. > 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? Are you going to (HORRORS! SHUDDER!) *impose* other morals on me?? As far as liver flukes, again you are picking non-sentient or barely-sentient animals. I only support protection of sentient animals (in proportion to their sentience; thus dogs and cats come above birds and below chimps). > [Ken then considers my definition of "rights". We have no disagree- > ment left except that I want to point out that] My definition of "rights" was purely in response to Joel V. Sanders, who suggested that the concept of rights was meaningless and thus an inappropriate basis for arguments about abortion. My response was strictly designed to show that the concept is meaningful. I did not mean to suggest that there is any simple, direct connection to the abortion issue. I put the two subjects together only because I was replying to one person (Ken) on both subjects. -- ------------------------------------ Dick Naugle Says: | "o PREPARE FOOD FRESH | --the ever-unpopular THIRD side, o SERVE CUSTOMERS FAST | Paul V. Torek, wucs!wucec2!pvt1047 o KEEP PLACE CLEAN" |