esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (09/28/84)
[]
An intelligent argument -- I'm shocked. ("Intelligent" doesn't necessarily
mean "decisive", however. Let's take a look ... )
>>> She isn't denying aid, she is actively acting against another and his
>>> property rights. Destroying the fetus is an even greater violation of its
>>> property rights than hanging around for a few months is a violation of the
>>> women's rights.
>>> [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
>>
>>So if I pitch a tent, without permission, on someone else's property, I
>>have the right to squat there until I decide I don't need to use the
>>land anymore. The fetus is within the woman; it is allocating her
>>resources. The woman's property rights take precedence. [-- Ken Montgomery]
> But if
> 1) driving you off that land will cost you your life, and
> 2) you are not responsible for the situation, and
> 3) I drive you off the land in full knowledge of the fact,
> I suspect that I would be prosecuted for murder.
> --mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile)
I don't find Mark Terribile's argument convincing. But I don't find Ken
Montgomery's argument convincing either. Whose property is it -- or is it
anyone's? Or is it perhaps common property? We tend to think that people
have a right not to be forcibly changed from their natural condition. Thus
(we tend to think) they have a right not to be disfigured, but they don't
have a right to plastic surgery at public expense if they're born (conceived?)
that way. The problem is, the natural condition for a fetus is to be in the
womb. This raises doubts about the "tent on your property" analogy.
I suggest that a better analogy is to siamese twins who, if separated, ONE of
them will die. Now suppose the other one argues, "I demand separation. The
other twin is dependent on my body, but it's using MY property; allocating
MY resources. I have a right to control my own body." I don't think that
argument would wash. Now, this situation is disanalogous in respect that the
woman was there first, but I don't think that makes a difference.
It was a nice idea -- a way to get out of the problem of whether these
critters are the moral equivalent of adult humans, by saying "even if they
are, abortion should be allowed." Just what we always wanted -- an easy
answer! Problem is, it isn't so easy -- the property rights invoked by the
argument may be nonexistent. But then, I never did much believe in ironclad
property rights anyway ...
--The untiring iconoclast,
Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.