From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:00:10 GMT

In article <Oct05.215617.108182@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.224036.1631@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>|> In article <Sep20.003644.94110@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> >In article <ta3nb-d.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> >|> Long article folks.
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> <Sep15.211521.72108@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> >|> ><g2yn=gf.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> >|> >|> <Sep14.172042.44575@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> >|> >|> ><kzwnk!r.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> >|> >|> >|> <Sep12.071229.20901@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> >
>|> >	The point of all this is that we do not pick an arbirary age
>|> >at which a child's rights are "granted."  We do not and must not
>|> >draw an arbitrary line for when a child's right to life begins. 
>|> >Restricting the voting age to 18 and over is not a violation of
>|> >anybody's rights -- parents are merely holding those rights in trust
>|> >until such time as the right in question can be used for the benefit
>|> >of the child and without violating the rights of everybody else.
>|> 
>|> This is absolutely absurd, Steven. Rights of minors are not "held in trust",
>|> they simply DON'T EXIST in many cases, such as voting, ability to enter into
>|> contracts, etc.
>
>	I disagree.  If rights are "granted" by anyone then they are not rights,
>but privileges.  I do not believe in the "privilege" of life but in a RIGHT to
>life, an inalienable RIGHT which nobody can take from me, but which I might waive
>in various ways.

See below. The right exists only inasmuch as the corresponding duties exist.
No duties, no rights. They're just different ways of looking at the same 
thing. 

>|> Do you even understand what a right IS, Steven?
>
>	Yes.
>
>|> It's not just an abstraction
>|> that can be assigned at will to anything whatsoever -- every legal right 
>|> corresponds to a legal DUTY on the part of others.
>
>	In a sense, perhaps.  

Not "in a sense", Steven -- that's the way it's formulated IN LAW. It's the
only practical way of implementing rights. You can sing abstractions all you
want, but when it comes to _implementation_, available interpretations tend to
be rather more limited.

>If I have a right to life, it follows that everyone
>else has a duty not to kill me.  However, their duty is a negative, not a
>positive.  If I have a right to property, it is the duty of others not to steal
>from me -- or if they do steal, to make restitution.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by your positive_vs_negative distinction,
Steven. It doesn't seem to buy you much.

>|> In the case of voting,
>|> no-one has a duty to honor a vote cast by a minor -- the minor can vote as
>|> much as they want, but no-one has a legal duty to honor it. Nor does anyone 
>|> have a legal duty to honor a contract entered into by a minor, generally 
>|> speaking.
>
>	I agree, but only because those rights are temporarily held in trust by
>the parents.

No, no, no, Steven. Even an orphan can have the right to vote. Even an alien, 
once naturalized, can have the right to vote. All citizens above a certain age
have the right to vote (except I think convicted felons and possibly the 
insane). It has nothing to do with their parents. Parents are irrelevant to
the right to vote.

>	Kevin, do you think that the right to enter into a contract is "granted"
>by some person or institution?  

Did I say that? Why do you keep raising this "granting" straw man, Steven?
I never said that all rights are "granted", I only said that some rights are
age-dependent. Those are not equivalent concepts. You seem to be laboring under
the absurd impression that just because someone passes the transition point
from "not having right X" to "having right X" that there must be some sort of
"granting" process. Not so. Processes are dynamic, but status is, well, static.
Just because state changes doesn't mean that there is some explicit transition 
PROCESS associated with the transition.

Let me give you an analogy: when a dollar in my wallet is devalued, is there
an explicit transition which occurs to that dollar bill? Of course not. It's
still the same PHYSICAL dollar, it's just not worth the same relative to 
something else.

Similarly, when a person achieves the legal capacity to contract, to vote,
or whatever, there is not necessarily any explicit PROCESS associated with the
change -- they just simply go from "not having the right" to "having the 
right". So there is no "granting" necessary. No "person or institution" sends
you a certificate in the mail saying "you are hereby granted the right to
vote", or whatever. You just HAVE it, if you care to ever exercise it.

>Then WHAT person or institution?  And can that
>person or institution WITHHOLD such a right?  

Let's take the voting example. A person's right to vote CAN be suspended, I
believe, if that person is a convicted felon.

>And for what reasons?  

Because they're considered to have forfeited it for a time.

>For how long?  

For the extent of their incarceration.

>And for all the specifics you cite, WHY are those particulars the correct
>ones?  Are they simply arbitrary?  And who gets to make these arbitrary
>decisions?  And why?

Legislatures make these arbitrary decisions all the time; in theory, they
represent the (perhaps arbitrary) Will of the People. The judicial branch
decides whether these legislative decisions are consistent with the existing
body of law. Sometimes the judicial branch issues decisions which sound as
arbitrary as those of the legislatures. However, the system seems to be 
working, as a whole, and, besides, what's the alternative?

>	I maintain that every living human being owns his or her own body, and I
>maintain that this fact is the philosophical basis of human rights: 

This again...

Steven, you are in a DISTINCT MINORITY when you assert property rights as the
basis of all other rights. Most thinking people consider property to SERVE
humanity, not the other way around. Most thinking people, if they will agree
that people "own" their bodies at all, will pass such an inane assertion off
as simply ivory-tower academic babble. "Property" means, in common everyday
experience, COLLECTIONS OF INANIMATE OBJECTS. The further one extends 
property beyond this, the more problematic and questionable one's 
propositions become. Look at all the messiness over intellectual "property"
rights. Who "owns" an idea? Can an idea be stolen? Is a "copy" of an idea
distinguishable from the idea itself? If all of these questions are thorny
and bizarre, how much more thorny and bizarre do you think it seem to us to
base an anti-abortion argument on the shaky principle that one "owns" one's
body? Argument from Mars.

 
>...the right to life, liberty, and property.  

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Steven. The "pursuit of happiness"
part may require property, or it may not. Some folks get along without property
just fine. Many primitive societies don't have any notion of individual 
property whatsoever. How can you possibly assert as a "philosophical basis"
something which isn't even anthropologically universal??? And, quite frankly,
I think there's much to be said for propertyless societies. The grasping for
property may very well ultimately prove to be the downfall of civilization.

>If you deny that some people own their own bodies
>then you assert that they are slaves; 

Wrong, Steven. I assert that people may not own OTHER PEOPLE'S bodies. That's
not the same thing. I'm asserting an ANTI-property proposition -- a "negative
duty", as you called it earlier. I'm not asserting that people "own their
bodies" in any meaningful sense -- that's just academic hot air with no
practical day-to-day significance.

>|> None of this entails "holding rights in trust", Steven. That concept seems to 
>|> be purely of your own invention. If you wish to pursue it, then please provide
>|> some supporting authoritative legal cites. 
>
>	I make all philosophical statements on my own authority, relying on
>reason, not books, to defend them.  

Fine. You do that. Just don't expect anyone to translate your "philosophical
statements" into law until you cough up some legal cites. Philosophy is great,
but you can't run a society on philosophy alone. Philosophy doesn't "bring 
home the bacon", Steven. I speak from firsthand experience here.

>I do not say that my philosophy on human
>rights is currently accepted or even that it is perfect; but I do maintain that
>it is the best theory I have heard so far and I am prepared to debate it with you
>at length.

With the possible exception of some frothing-at-the-mouth Randists, your
"property-centric" theory of morality is not shared by anyone credible I
know. Certainly no-one we studied in my degree program.

>|> >|> >	Why?  Unborn children violate no laws.
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> Yes, they do - arbitrarily decided by the woman.  If she *wants* to be
>|> >|> pregnant then no law is broken.  If she doesn't want to be pregnant then
>|> >|> the fetus is trespassing.
>|> >
>|> >	A child is not trespassing because he can be removed at any time.  
>|>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> Amen!
>|> 
>|> >Just not killed.
>|> 
>|> If a pre-viable z/e/f is going to die from the removal ANYWAY, what possible
>|> social benefit can there be to NOT killing it first, if such a method reduces
>|> the risks and or economic cost of the procedure? Any restrictions on pre-viable
>|> abortions, short of possibly anaesthetizing the fetus, are little more than
>|> symbolic gestures, are they not?
>
>	If the pre-viable fetus is removed and it dies, I would hold the mother
>and the doctor liable for gross negligence.  

But, Steven, didn't you say above that the "child" CAN BE REMOVED AT ANY TIME?
How can someone be charged with gross negligence for explicitly exercising 
their legal rights? 
 
>If they both KNEW and INTENDED for it to die, it's murder 1.

They know it, Steven, but their intention is to effect removal. The death
was just a secondary effect of removal. There is no criminal _mens rea_ with
respect to the z/e/f's death, and therefore no basis for a criminal action.
Case dismissed.

>|> >Nor neglected to death.  The mother is responsible for the life of her child.
>|> 
>|> Not Constitutionally, Steven. Only because the _States_ mandate it.
>
>	Constitutionally, perhaps not.  Morally, always.  

Whose morality? Yours? Mine happens to differ. If you want to impose yours 
OVER mine, then try to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck. You'll need
it.

>Legally, the mother
>SHOULD always be responsible if her child dies because of her negligence or
>intent to kill.

In the case of a pre-viability abortion, she is neither negligent (assuming she
had the relevant facts available to make an informed decision) nor does she have
any provable intent to kill (the imputation of a primary intent to REMOVE, 
rather than kill the z/e/f, is a rebuttable presumption). She is guilty on
neither count. Case dismissed.

>|> >Immanuel Kant has an extensive history of shared communication (if
>|> >you want to use that word) with others; by your logic, he's about
>|> >due for something in the way of rights.
>|> 
>|> There is no "shared communication" in the case of Immanuel Kant. In the
>|> first place, any "communication" is one-way: Kant can "communicate" to us,
>|> but we can't "communicate" back. Therefore, it's not "shared" communication.
>|> In the second place, Kant is not "communicating", only his works are. Do you 
>|> really want to grant personhood to a bunch of dusty old Philosophy textbooks
>|> (I've heard, from some of my profs who read him in the original German, that 
>|> Kant was a pretty bad writer, anyhow, but not nearly as bad as Hegel)???
>
>	Immanuel Kant, when he was alive, had a long history of shared
>communication.  He can communicate no longer.  Ditto with the man in a coma.

Fine. Then you have proven, at most, that it would be a criminal offence to
"kill" Immanuel Kant. But you can't "kill" someone who's already dead. So
your victory, if it exists at all, is purely academic. Enjoy it to the utmost.

>	But you're missing the point.  I'm saying, I've BEEN saying, that Kant
>has no rights (since he is not alive).  He's gone now, despite his long history
>of shared communication -- all that nonsense means nothing vis-a-vis his rights. 

Steven, you're confused. YOU are the one arguing for "personhood" here; Gordon 
has been arguing AGAINST it. If I were to step in right now and say

	An entity with a history of shared communication qualifies as a 
	"person", but that is not necessarily the ONLY thing which qualifies 
	entities as persons

what possible defense could you have? So far, you've been strenuously arguing,
for some reason, that Immanuel Kant is a person. Your task, however, is not
to prove anything about Immanuel Kant, but to prove the assertion that ALL
Z/E/F'S are persons. You have been sadly neglectful of your assigned task.
 
>|> She should have a right to "put it in" OR "take it out", Steven. And, as long 
>|> as the z/e/f doesn't have a chance of biological independence, and doesn't feel
>|> pain, there shouldn't be any silly restrictions on HOW she "takes it out" 
>|> either. Why make things more difficult and/or risky and/or costly than they
>|> need to be?
>
>	What is this, Kevin?  I always thought you were a pro-lifer.

You've been listening to propaganda again, Steven. I've ALWAYS been a 
pro-choicer, of the moderate variety. The only reason you might have seen me
harangue pro-choicers a lot is because I generally *CARE* about pro-choice 
arguments being logically sound than I do about pro-life arguments being
logically sound. Most days, I'd just as soon that pro-life arguments crumble
to dust when subjected to the light of reality, so I don't touch them with
a ten-foot pole in talk.abortion. You caught me on one of those "other" days,
however, when I just couldn't stand your sophistries any more.

>	Why make it more costly/difficult/inconvenient than it needs to be? 
>Because the life of a living human being is at stake.  

Doesn't matter, Steven. We've already weighed the z/e/f's life against the
woman's Bodily Autonomy, and decided in favor of the woman. Now, please answer
the question: if the z/e/f is going to die from removal ANYWAY, why bother with
the symbolic, but expensive and risky gesture of removing it FIRST, and letting
it die SECOND??? What useful purpose does it serve? 

>A life which is there, not
>by his or her request, but by the mother's voluntary behavior.  A life for which
>the mother is responsible.

We've weighed that too, Steven. We choose to assess her "responsibility" at a
reduced rate, since

	a) Pregnancy is unlikely, and she took reasonable precautions to 
	   prevent it

		and

	b) It's just too damned intrusive to regulate sex, so we'd rather just
	   deal with the consequences after the fact. There is ample precedent
	   for this approach in other areas of social policy.

Must I trot out the "driving a car" analogy to demonstrate how the "accepting
responsibility" argument breaks down in other areas of the law, Steven?

>	She put it in, all right; she caused it to exist.  But now that it does
>exist, she cannot simply kill it at her pleasure.

Agreed as to the last phrase -- she can't kill it just for "pleasure". She 
has to demonstrate valid medical and economic reasons for choosing one 
abortion method over another. This is trivial to do, of course.

>|> Weren't you the one blubbering about "property rights" a while back?
>
>	No.  I don't believe in blubbering.  But I was upholding the right of
>property.

As you wish. I say tom-ay-toh; you say to-mah-toh. You say "upholding"; I say 
"blubbering".

>|> Well, if 
>|> it helps, think of the non-viable z/e/f as the woman's property, to dispose 
>|> of as she sees fit. You wouldn't want to compromise her property rights, now
>|> would you?
>
>	If it helps you, Kev, think of the unborn child's body as his or her own
>property, bestowed upon the child at conception.  

It's questionable whether ADULTS "own" their bodies in any meaningful sense.
Certainly a blob of cells doesn't. Neither do minors. Their parents act on
their behalf in property matters. If we consider the z/e/f a minor, and even
if we hypothetically consider a z/e/f's body "property", in what sense does the
parent NOT have the right to dispose of that "property" in the way she thinks
is in the best shared interests of herself and her offspring?

>And think of the mother as
>having implicitly agreed, by virtue of having CAUSED the new life to exist, to
>care for and protect the child's life.

She makes no such agreement simply by having sex, however. The connection 
between the various enticements of sex, on the one hand, and the assemblage
of burdens, risks and commitments attendant to having a child, on the other,
are sufficiently remote from each other to resist any kind of non-arbitrary
rational connection forming the basis for an "implicit contract". In short,
you can't get from Point A to Point B, legalistically speaking.
 
>	What the Supreme Court has ruled is completely beside the point wrt human
>rights.  The Supreme Court can be wrong; the Supreme Court can mangle and
>misinterpret the constitution; the Supreme Court can, in fact, completely ignore
>the original intent of the writers and insert an opinion which was never there. 
>The Supreme Court can say tomorrow that a right of free speech does not exist; it
>would not be any the less a fundamental right of all human beings for that reason.

Get real, Steven. The only ways to "overturn" a Supreme Court ruling are

	a) To get them to reverse themselves (may require careful packing by
	   the Prez)

	b) Pass a Constitutional Amendment (HLA, anyone? FOCA?)

	c) Overthrow the government (feel free to talk treason anytime you
	   want, Steven)

None of those are likely to happen soon, except perhaps the FOCA. So, rant
and rave all you want about Supreme Court decisions stomping on Natural 
Rights -- we'll make more.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42233 talk.politics.guns:22052 alt.conspiracy:11207 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5289 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6737 talk.bizarre:33910