From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Doug, do you realize how STUPID this sounds? (Was: Right to Exist)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:49:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.014927.5236@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.141153.5249@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>> The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the
>>> right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right
>>> to freedom. Without existence, freedom is not possible. All humans
>>> should have an equal right to exist, and since the right to exist
>>> is supreme, no human can deny another human the right to exist,
>>> unless their own existence is threatened. 
>
>> In order to hold this position consistently, you must also affirm 
>> that an individual has no right to use lethal force to defend
>> against a rapist unless it is clear that the attacker also intends
>> to murder.
>
>Rape implies the use of force, which may result in the death of
>the potential rape victim. Therefore, a potential rape victim would 
>be justified in using deadly force against their attacker.
>
>> This follows if you believe the right to exist takes precedence
>> over the right to the freedom of bodily autonomy.
>
>The potential rape victim's existence is being threatened, and so
>they should have the right to use deadly counter-force.  
>
>> I might add that your premise, as worded, would also preclude the
>> use of lethal force by a law enforcement officer in protecting
>> an innocent victim from attack, as long as the officer was out
>> of the line of fire.
>
>A human may assign their right to self-defense to another human,
>in whole or part.
>
>> I take it you are anti-war, under all circumstances?
>
>No. For the purposes of self-defense, war is appropriate. 
>
>> You would rather be enslaved than violate the right of another 
>> to exist?
>
>No. Enslavement implies the use of force, which may result in death.
>
>>> The right to exist includes the right not to be killed by others, 
>>> and the right to receive support from others, but it does not 
>>> necessarily include the right to expect support from others. 
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>
>It is the essence of my argument. I have the right to exist. No person
>should be allowed to prevent other people from supporting me. If I am
>dying, then no person can prevent a doctor from healing me. But, I
>cannot force any person to support me against their will. I should not
>be able to force a doctor to heal me.
>
>>> The fetus either has rights, or it does not. 
>
>> Since a fetus is not a person, 
>
>Irrelevant. All human life should have the right to exist. A fetus is a 
>human life, and therefore it should have the right to exist.
>
>> and it poses a risk of terminating
>> the existence of the woman (who IS a person), it has no rights.
>
>The existence of the woman is not always threatened by the presence
>of the fetus. When the woman's life becomes threatened by the fetus, 
>then she should have the right to kill the fetus. She cannot kill
>the fetus simply because it "may" threaten her existence in the distant 
>future. 
>
>No human should be allowed to kill another simply because they
>"may" be threatened in the distant future. For example, I cannot kill a 
>reckless automobile driver because they may crash into me in the distant 
>future. I cannot kill a person who threatens to kill me in the
>distant future. I may kill them if they threaten my immediate
>existence. 
>
>>>                                              If the fetus has any 
>>> rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is 
>>> equal to that of any other human being.
>
>> You make quite a leap here. Why would its rights be equal to a born
>> human being? 
>
>A fetus is no less human than any other human life. If it is not a human 
>life, then what is it? All humans should have the same right to existence. 
>
>> Nature itself destroys around 30% of all fertilized 
>> eggs. 
>
>A human should not be forced to support a fertilized egg. But, a human
>should not be allowed to kill a fertilized egg, since it is a human life, 
>and the egg has the right to exist. When a fertilized egg dies naturally, 
>it is not killed by the woman, it dies from a lack of support. 
>
>A fertilized egg in a petri dish has the right to exist, and no human
>should be allowed to kill it. But no human should be forced to support its
>existence, and no human can prevent other humans from supporting the
>egg. Humans may leave the egg to die from a lack of support -- humans 
>do not cause the death of the egg by not supporting it. I cannot cause
>the death of another person by not supporting them. 
>
>> The fetus is contained within a _woman_, whose pain and risk 
>> should be considered in assigning any rights to an entity which
>> resides within her body.
>
>A human should not be forced to support another human against their
>will. But, the fetus has the right to exist, and so it cannot be
>killed. 
>
>>> Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
>>> support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right 
>>> of the fetus to exist.
>
>> You still haven't addressed the woman in this picture. 
>
>The woman should have the right to refuse to support the fetus. But no
>person should be allowed to kill the fetus, or to prevent others from
>supporting the fetus. 
>
>> Until you
>> show that bodily autonomy is subordinate to the right of others
>> to exist in all circumstances, 
>
>Define "bodily autonomy".
>
>> and prove that a fetus should have
>> rights equal to any other human organism, you've proved nothing.
>
>I cannot prove that a fetus should have the same right to exist
>as other humans. Nor can I prove that I should have the same right to
>existence as the fetus, or any other human life. 
>
>No human can judge the value of another human life, because a
>value judgement is merely an opinion, a subjective judgement, 
>which is valid only to oneself. No person should be allowed to kill
>the mentally retarded, or the autistic, or humans born without a brain, 
>simply because their lives are not valued by some persons. A human 
>can only judge its own existence, not the existence of others. A fetus 
>is the only human life who is fit to judge its own existence. By killing
>a fetus, a person has denied the fetus its right to exist, and therefore 
>has denied the fetus its right to judge its own existence.  



[Note:  Before you all start flaming me for leaving the entire article in,
verbating, I'm hoping that Doug will re-read his own words, and realize exactly
what it is he's saying.  If not, I'm going to tell him right down here...]

Doug, go back and re-read this post.  Especially your own words.  What you're
saying (correct me if I'm wrong), is that every human has a right to exist
until their life is endangered by another life.  In other words, _you_ have
a right to exist until _you_ threaten _my_ life.  Then, I can kill you, because
_you're_ threatening _my_ right to life.  Right?

Now, since EVERY pregnancy poses some threat to the life of a woman, EVERY
woman has the right to remove the fetus, as the _fetus_ is threatening the
_woman's_ life.  Right?

Now, I know you're going to say "No!  That's not the way it works", so please
do me the courtesy of explaining exactly where my logic is flawed.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,soc.singles,talk.bizarre