kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (12/04/84)
[] > ... My intention was to mean that, once It was >determined that a woman was pregnant, that there was another life involved >than just the woman's convenience, and in this case, there IS a duty >involved! Just as much a duty as that a father SHOULD support his children! Why does anyone have the duty to support anyone else? >Of course, a woman does not have to become pregnant, Ever hear of accidental contraceptive failures? Women *do* have to put up with ovulation! > but once another >human life is involved, her rights are naturally restricted, You are not just talking about restricting her rights -- you are talking about forcing her to aid someone who has no claim on her! > ... > Do not, by the way, in the great rush to free women from the "slavery" >of pregnancy, give them the extraordinary power of summary execution, You don't think people should be able to use lethal force to protect themselves from intruders, if necessary? >without trial or cause, of an innnocent human life. Abortions are done "without cause"? Isn't an unwanted pregnancy a "cause"? What does the alleged "innocence" of a tresspasser have to do with protecting one's property, anyway? > Gerald Owens -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (12/07/84)
>> = ??? > = Ken Montgomery = me (Thomas Newton) [] >> ... My intention was to mean that, once it was >> determined that a woman was pregnant, that there was another life involved >> that just the woman's convenience, and in this case, there IS a duty >> involved! just as much a duty as that a father SHOULD support his children! >Why does anyone have the duty to support anyone else? Ken, have you heard of a concept called RESPONSIBILITY? This concept has a LEGAL basis as well as a MORAL basis . . . since children are considered to be incompetent to take care of themselves, the responsibility for their care falls first upon their natural parents (who CAUSED them to exist), then upon adoptive parents (if any)(who EXPLICITLY assume responsibility), and finally upon the state (by default or in child abuse cases) (since children CANNOT BE EXPECTED to look out for themselves and since our society has hopefully risen above the "law of the jungle"). >> but once another >> human life is involved, her rights are naturally restricted, > You are not just talking about restricting her rights -- > you are talking about forcing her to aid someone who has > no claim on her! Unless the woman was raped, a fetus which is considered to be a "human being" (we can definitely say that this happens sometime >= conception and <= birth) has a legitimate claim on BOTH of its natural parents which far outweighs any inconvenience on their parts. Birth control methods are KNOWN to be fallable, so you can't say that a fetus is "trespassing" if the woman consented to sex. The case of pregnancies resulting from rape is really nasty since the fetus who is "trespassing" is innocent and not responsible for its actions. In this case, the woman should not be forced to actively support the fetus, but every attempt should be made to perform a "live" abortion. If the fetus dies, the rapist should be faced with a manslaughter charge (he caused its death in much the same way that careless drivers cause the deaths of other people). If it lives, the rapist should be forced to pay for the cost of its upbringing. >> ... >> Do not, by the way, in the great rush to free women from the "slavery" >> of pregnancy, give them the extraordinary power of summary execution, > You don't think people should be able to use lethal force to protect > themselves from intruders, if necessary? If you kill a three-year-old child who is trespassing in your back yard, I suspect that the courts will not only reject your claim of "self-protection" but will find you guilty of premeditated murder. Especially if you had set out soda pop, cookies, etc. in your back yard just before the kid came over (whether or not you closed the gate and put up a barbed wire fence). Now if the three-year old was holding a loaded gun pointed at you and was about to pull the trigger, your action would be justified though regrettable. This corresponds to the case of a fetus which is posing an imminent threat to the life of its mother (very complicated pregnancies and some pregnancies that occur in very young teenagers). Thomas Newton
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (12/07/84)
>From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) > >Unless the woman was raped, a fetus which is considered to be a "human being" >(we can definitely say that this happens sometime >= conception and <= birth) >has a legitimate claim on BOTH of its natural parents which far outweighs any >inconvenience on their parts. Birth control methods are KNOWN to be fallable, >so you can't say that a fetus is "trespassing" if the woman consented to sex. > If I install a burglar alarm system in my house which is almost foolproof (nothing stops a really determined burglar) and someone breaks in despite all my precautions, do I not have a right to use any reasonable means available to get him to leave? (Yes, I should start with non-lethal methods if I can and only kill him in self defense, but don't I have a right to use lethal force if I'm in danger?) I have argued in a previous post that a trespassing fetus (which is not by definition a "human being") causes potential and/or real harm to the mother. Also, only the mother is being abused, though the father was obviously involved. If you're going to have laws requiring women to lose big in favor of a trespasser of dubious status, make sure the men involved lose as much or don't discriminate against women to begin with. (Enforcement is the problem of the folks proposing the law.) >If you kill a three-year-old child who is trespassing in your back yard, I >suspect that the courts will not only reject your claim of "self-protection" >but will find you guilty of premeditated murder. Especially if you had set >out soda pop, cookies, etc. in your back yard just before the kid came over >(whether or not you closed the gate and put up a barbed wire fence). If, however, this three-year-old shows up and demands food, shelter, and lots of tender loving care, don't I have the right to turn him away, even if this means he might not find food, etc. anywhere else? Maybe heartless, maybe justified, but not immoral. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (12/08/84)
> From: mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) > > If I install a burglar alarm system in my house which is almost foolproof > (nothing stops a really determined burglar) and someone breaks in despite > all my precautions, do I not have a right to use any reasonable means > available to get him to leave? (Yes, I should start with non-lethal methods > if I can and only kill him in self defense, but don't I have a right to use > lethal force if I'm in danger?) This seems to be getting into a rehash of a discussion that appeared a few weeks back...but here goes: if you invite the burglar into your house (the biological purpose of sex is reproduction) while putting locks on the doors and windows (trying to prevent him from acting on your invitation), and he gets in anyway, is he really there without your permission? > I have argued in a previous post that a trespassing fetus (which is not by > definition a "human being" So we're playing the definitions game? In the 19th century, a common method of justifying slavery was to define blacks as subhuman, neatly stepping around the moral/ethical problems that would arise by acknowledging their humanity. It is clear that before conception there is no "human being." Afterwards, we have a cell (or group of cells) with a DIFFERENT GENETIC STRUCTURE THAN EITHER PARENT. So conception is a lower bound for HUMAN-BEING(X), and many would say that it is the most plausible one. It is clear that after birth we have a "human being" entitled to inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," despite the recent attempts by some members of this newsgroup (not you) to justify killing any child up to the age of 12, to justify killing starving children for the use of their body parts, etc. It is clear that there is no major difference between the state of development of the fetus immediately before birth and immediately after birth. Thus, we can say that (FETUS(X) implies HUMAN-BEING(X)) if (STATE(X) > T) where T is some value conception <= T < birth and VALUE("a fetus is not by definition a human being") = FALSE. > causes potential and/or real harm to the mother. But this harm is the indirect result of the mother's actions. Fetuses don't implant themselves magically; there is an enabling act which must be performed by both parents, and except in case of rape this act is done voluntarily. The parents have every right to try to reduce this harm EXCEPT AT THE COST OF THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING (in this case, FETUS(X) where STATE(X) > T). I don't see any problem with having the parents pay for maintaining the fetus in an incubator if the technology is available and reasonably safe to the fetus. > Also, only the mother is being abused, though the father was obviously > involved. Unfortunately, the fact that only the mother pays biologically is not subject to our control. If I get struck by lightning, I lose, and it does not make a practical difference that it is unfair for all the lightning to hit me rather than being distributed evenly among everyone out in the open. > If you're going to have laws requiring women to lose big in favor of a > trespasser of dubious status, make sure the men involved lose as much or > don't discriminate against women to begin with. (Enforcement is the > problem of the folks proposing the law). The men involved should lose as much as the women since they are equally responsible. We can't do anything about the biological aspect, but we can set up laws to split the financial/legal consequences equally (or possibly tilt them against the men to roughly compensate for the biological aspect). I don't agree that the trespasser is of "dubious status" or that the fairness laws must be enforced perfectly before we can protect the life of the fetus. We have laws against murdering born humans, even though (a) murder is one way of getting revenge/symbolic compensation against someone who has discriminated against you, and (b) our current enforcement system isn't 100% effective against discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right. A woman shouldn't be allowed to skip out on her responsibility by victimizing the fetus, and a man shouldn't be allowed to skip out on his responsibility by victimizing the woman. In civil cases (divorce, child support, etc.) courts usually characterize damages in terms of money. One approach that has been used recently is for the courts/government to guarantee some reasonable level of child support to the woman & child(ren) by turning MAN has obligation X to WOMAN AND CHILD(REN) into GOVERNMENT has obligation Y to WOMAN AND CHILD(REN) (this essentially means that they will receive amount Y) MAN has obligation Y to GOVERNMENT (if he doesn't pay turn him over to the tender mercies of the IRS, FBI, and Dept. of Justice until he does...) MAN has obligation X-Y to WOMAN AND CHILD(REN) (X-Y may equal 0) (when the government catches him for Y, the courts can get X-Y at the same time and pass it along). > If, however, this three-year-old shows up and demands food, shelter, and > lots of tender loving care, don't I have the right to turn him away, even > if this means he might not find food, etc. anywhere else? Maybe heartless, > maybe justified, but not immoral. The analogy I used was deliberately weak in the direction of ("adult does not have responsibility for child"). Basically I was trying to show that you do not always have the right to use lethal force against a trespasser. In the case of someone who is not a trespasser, you would have even less grounds for taking their life. -- Thomas Newton -- UUCP: ???? ARPA: thomas.newton@cmu-cs-spice