From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: I had a book on organizing my life here somewhere. . .
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:46:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.145737.12572@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Aug24.173816.695@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.192521.27445@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>>>In <1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>>"A right isn't something that you're given. A right is something that
>>>no one can take away." Your question makes no sense.
>
>OK, this is kind of tricky. The idea is that if a right is *given*, then
>it can also be *taken*. If that's the case, it isn't a right at all, it's
>a privilege.

I understand you so far. . .  But what do we have that cannot be
(legally) taken away?

>This is a subtle distinction, but an important one. In
>a rights-based system, the government exists to serve the people. In a
>privilege-based system, the people exist to serve the government.

A question from the ignorant audience. . . do you consider the US to
be a rights-based government?  And if so, where are our rights
described, and what guarantees do we have that they cannot be removed?
(In other words, to be a right, it cannot be removed, so what proof
do we have that what looks like privileges are actually rights?)

>The idea is that people are born with a certain set of rights, which
>can't be infringed upon. The primary function of the government is to 
>deal with conflicts between these rights. As long as no conflict 
>exists, no restrictions are allowed.

Clear so far.

>>>A better
>>>question would be "Who gave you the authority to impose your religious
>>>beliefs on people who do not practice your religion?"
>
>>The majority.  If the majority of the voters decide that abortion is
>>murder, they will be able to pass a law that imposes this belief on you.
>
>This would only be possible in a privilege-based system. For example,
>if "freedom of speech" was a privilege, then the majority could pass
>a law forbidding you to speak, even in the privacy of your own home.

Haven't some restrictions been imposed on free speech?  And if this is
true (the most common example is one of malicious mischief, yelling
"fire!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one), is free speech a
privilege, not a right?

>If
>"freedom of speech" is a right, then you can say what you want, no matter 
>how many people oppose you.

Does this also mean that you can say what you want irregardless of it's
affect on others?

>If the majority wants to silence you, then 
>they must first show that your speech infringes on their rights. This is 
>not easy to do.
>
>So, to make abortion illegal in a rights-based system, you need to do
>two things. First, prove that fetuses are worthy of rights. Note that
>this is legally unprecedented. Even before Roe v. Wade, fetuses were
>not considered persons in the eyes of the law.
>
>Next, you have to demonstrate that the "right to life" of a fetus   
>outweighs the "right to bodily autonomy" of a born person.

Clear up to here (I think, I obviously have some areas where it isn't
clear, but I've asked questions, so maybe the answers will make it
crystal clear).

>Note that the fetus does a lot of damage over the course of nine months.

This sounds like an opinion.  What kind of damage does a fetus do?  I
am the proud father of a 6 month old baby boy, and except for a tiny
scar and a few extra pounds, my wife seems undamaged (if you consider
extra pounds damage).

>If
>a born person tried to inflict that level of damage on you, you would
>be perfectly justified in killing him in self-defense.

!?!?!?!?  Wow, do you ever have an extreme view of pregnancy!  If you
don't mind, I'd like you to finish teaching me, before we dive back
into disagreements about abortion/pregnancy etc.

>Of course, you can also take the short-cut, and claim that there is
>a "compelling state interest in preserving fetal life". When you do
>this, you say that "bodily autonomy" is a privilege, not a right,
>and the state is allowed to impose its will on its citizens.

Hasn't this precedent already been set, MANY times over, in the USA?
Consider the draft (forced military service and paying taxes).

>This
>is what is happening in China right now. They are mandating abortion
>rather than banning it, but the legal principles are exactly the
>same. (So you'd do well to think long and hard before you try to
>take us down this road....)

No need to go down that road, we are already way down it, as far as
I can see.

>If there is a "right to life", then it exists regardless of whether
>your father was a rapist or not. (Note also the "equal protection"
>clause in the Constitution. If the fetus is a human being, then 
>rape-and-incest exceptions are unconstitutional.)

Then what about capital punishment?  Does the existence of capital
punishment (and justifiable homicide, and self-defense laws) indicate
that we have no right to life?  These are all exceptions, are they
not?

>If life is only a privilege, then of course the government can pass
>whatever laws it wants.

It would seem so.  In fact, if I understand what you have written,
there are no inalienable rights, and the USA is a privilege based
government.

>===========================================================
>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
>===========================================================

John
stevens@uswest.com