From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:21:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.192510.17980@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
># bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
># >beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
># ># drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
># ># >Do you hold the proposition 'Abortion is Murder' to be
># ># >an intelligible proposition that can be exported into
># ># >Law in a consistent and meaningful Manner?
># ># 
># ># I don't know about Peter Nyikos, but I believe the proposition can
># ># be "exported into Law" in a consistent and meaningful manner.
># ># Rape/incest/unhealth changes the balance of rights between woman 
># ># and fetus, permitting her to remove the fetus from her body.
># >
># >I'd say it would hinge on, among other things, why and more
># >importantly *how* rape/incest/`unhealth' changes the `balance of
># >rights' between woman and fetus.  What consistent criteria can you use
># >to establish what conditions are necessary for a fetus to be deprived
># >of its right to life under these increasingly hypothetical laws?
># 
># I don't see how these are +increasingly+ hypothetical.  Anyway,
># let us be +very+ concrete.
># 
># THE FOLLOWING IS PRESENTED FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT.
># (Do not delete this disclaimer.)
># 
># Stipulate:  A fetus is a person.
>
>Well, if we're going to be *concrete* then we'd better define our
>terms better...
>
>Stipulation:  Exporting the proposition `abortion is murder' into law
>means accepting the idea that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are all
>within the class of human creatures the law deems to be persons.

Fine.


>Also, it must be shown that the criteria for establishing when unborn
>persons may be deprived of their right to life when they were
>conceived as a result of rape or incest, or when their mothers' lives
>are in grave physical danger resulting from pregnancy.

You have changed from "criteria to establish what conditions
are necessary" to "criteria to establish when unborn persons
may be deprived..."


># Assumption 2:  Any person may voluntarily restrict his/her
># basic rights (ie. they are voluntarily "alienable").
>
>Bad assumption.  A person may choose not to exercise his/her basic
>rights, but no one may be deprived of their basic rights because they
>have chosen not to exercise them.  (Your contrived argument rests on
>this fallacy, by the way.)

Irrelevant comment.  I referred to voluntary restriction of rights,
not to failing to exercise rights.  Your contrived objection fails.


  [example summaries of laws deleted]

>I presume these are the laws you intend to show are a consistent
>reflection of the original stipulation.  Good luck.

They are a quick and rough summary.  No legal system has ever
seen such compactly described laws.


># Criterion for establishing necessary conditions:
># ------------------------------------------------
># 
>#   Does the fetus' right to life exceed the sum of the woman's rights to 
>#   bodily privacy and to life?
>
>This is a question, not a criterion.  The criterion is your implied
>answer:  `no, except when it does' -- which is ludicrous.

Well, I guess any question can be answered "no, except when yes."
Now what?



>This is where your argument disintegrates.  The conditions you offer
>for deciding when the law may approve the deprivation of the unborn's
>right to life are inconsistent with current law.  The deprivation of a
>person's right to life can only be legally sanctioned by *due process*
>of law.  The law excuses the killing of a person after the fact if
>certain criteria are met, e.g. self-defense, but it does not *ever*
>issue legal licenses to kill people who have not been tried and found
>guilty of capital crime or have not been deemed to be enemies in time
>of war.

If you would like to be as detailed as current law and include
several hundred pages of description, that's your choice.

Require the woman to have a court's permission for abortion, assign
the fetus a public defender (it does have the right to question the
woman's claim of rape).  If the defender can't make a sufficient case,
then the fetus is evicted, through whatever means necessary.


># WHETHER THESE *SHOULD* BE LAW IS A SEPARATE QUESTION.
># (And I won't argue it.)
>
>...and I suspect I know the reason why.

State your suspicions.  I suspect you don't know or are trying
to make a misleading point.


>Here's basically what you've argued so far...
>
>Assumption:  Abortion is murder, except when...
>
>1.  ...the mother's health is gravely endangered by pregnancy -- it's
>killing in self-defense, and the state won't be able to prosecute if
>they don't think they can prove otherwise.
>
>2.  ...the unborn person was conceived as a result of rape -- it's
>killing in defense of `bodily privacy,' i.e. basic personal liberty
>(that was not surrendered by implicit contract) or some such
>silliness, and the state won't be able to prosecute if they can prove
>otherwise (e.g. by proving that the mother surrendered her rights,
>i.e. consented to sex).
>
>3.  ...the unborn person was conceived as a result of incest.  For
>this, you offer no explanation whatsoever.
>
>Now, (1) I do not wish to quibble about, (2) I think is absurd,
>because it seems ridiculous to think that *any* basic right is
>surrenderable, let alone by implicit contract.  And, (3) just makes me
>curious.

Well, since you seem to want an even more encyclopedic response,
I'm not interested in quibbling either.  Your restatements of
the arguments are inaccurate.  As for (3), it introduces yet another 
level of complexity: it contains BOTH the issue of involuntary 
conception (thus your "no explanation whatsoever" is off the mark)
AND the issue of fetal health, which has not so far been part 
of the discussion.  Given the already huge production, I was happy 
not to introduce it, quite intentionally.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright