From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: A new test of rights? (Was: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 22:27:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.180034.12440@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug  
Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Apr15.161158.23873@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
>                 jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:
>  
> >>>> Basically, all rights can be waived; if they couldn't, they
> >>>> would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the right
> >>>> to life because it can't waive it.
> 
> >>> Replace "fetus" with "newborn," and I believe you have a theory
> >>> that you would not want to present.
>  
> >> Why don't you come right out and say it? She's making an argument for
> >> infanticide.
> 
> > Pardon me? A newborn, once it's outside the woman's body, is not
> > conflicting with her rights. 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself. Above you say that the fetus does not
> have the right to life, and so presumably, the fetus has no rights.
> Now you say that the fetus' rights conflict with the mother's rights, 
> which implies that the fetus does have rights. Make up your mind, 
> does the fetus have rights or not?

I didn't mention the fetus' rights, but rather the fetus' existence.
Once a being can think, once it can _choose_, then it has rights.
It may have rights conflicting with those of the woman after its
brain is well-developed (~6 months).

> > Here's my response to Dave (and BTW,
> > why did you respond to his note and not mine?):
> 
> I am not obligated to respond to your posts.

No offense, but it seemed like a chance to throw out an emotional  
one-liner rather than analyze what I said. Since you do the latter 
here, I apologize.

> > That I understand, but when it's out of the woman's body, its 
> > existence is no longer is in conflict with her rights.
> 
> Here you're implying that the fetus has a right to exist, since
> conflicting rights implies that both parties have rights.

Here, I'm not talking about a fetus, but a newborn. And not about
rights, but current existence.
  
> > I'm sorry, but again his/her life, whether s/he could or would choose
> > to live it, is not in direct conflict with any other person's rights.
> 
> Again, conflicting rights implies that both parties have rights. 

See above.

> > True. My point, which I'll try to make clearer in the future, is that
> > unless we somehow knew whether a fetus would want to exercise any 
> > right to life, we cannot abridge the rights of the pregnant woman, 
> > whose wishes can be known. 
> 
> Now you reverse your position by saying that the fetus has no rights 
> because we can't know whether it would want to exercise its rights. 
> The same argument also applies to an infant, hence it is an argument 
> for infanticide.  

Why do you have this low opinion of infants? They can think; they can
know (if not yet express) what they want. 

> > But do you not agree that the definition of a right includes an option 
> > to not exercise it? For example, a government allowing me to bear arms
> > is a far cry from one forcing me to do so.
> 
> Your argument is that an infant and a fetus should have the right
> to kill themselves, not that someone else has the right to kill them. 

In a sense, yes. Last week, Steve Franklin proposed to me that we
should let the child decide whether to live after "a couple of years
to think about it." I then asked if he would prefer seeing 2-year-olds  
commit suicide in place of legal abortion. I never saw an answer. May 
I ask which you think is better?

 
> > And thank you for your flames, Doug.
> 
> What flames? I'm simply elucidating your position for the benefit of
> other readers. If your own position makes you uncomfortable, that's
> not my problem.

It just seemed to me that you pressed the "hot button" of infanticide,
IMO deliberately. If that wasn't your intention, I'm sorry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....