Subject: Re: N-C abortion 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:11:56 +0000

In article <1992Dec13.012822.22393@cbnews.cb.att.com>
           jap@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:

>If the mother has the right to abort because giving birth would cost her
>her life, then she has the same right if the costs are lesser.

How much less?  As far as I'm concerned, a life is weighed against a
life.  How much (money, for instance) is a life worth?  If you say that
a woman has the right to abort if to do otherwise would cost her 'x'
amount of money, you have put a price on life.  In which case, a person
would be quite legitimately permitted to take the life of someone by
whom he was owed money.

>Being born
>is a *privilege* bestowed upon a child by its parents, not a right.

Being brought into existence is a privilege bestowed by the parents.
They were under no compulsion to perform the act which created the
child.  Once having created life, that life has rights.

>Choosing to act in a manner which *may* result in some action does not
>imply an intent for that action to occur.  Thus, no contract is implied.
>Further, with no contract, beginning a process which will benefit somone
>else (as live birth arguably would be) can reasonably be terminated at
>any time.

Really?  So if I drive at 60 mph in a residential district, knowing that
I *may* hit a child (but am not *intending* to hit any child), I do not
bear responsibility for injuries to a child I hit?  An interesting
theory...

>The parents have in no way declared themselves irresponsible citizens,
>any more than not choosing to give to a particular charity (as it is
>a privilege, not a right, for a charity to receive donations).  It may
>not be "nice" to not give in some circumstance, but by no means is it
>irresponsible citizenship nor indicative of indifference toward people's
>rights.

Any more than a person who kills while driving in an inebriated
condition, evidently.  I suppose that you *could* claim 'diminished
responsibility', except that I thought Libertarianism had thrown that
out...

>This is off the subject, but would you then argue that a defense of the
>form "the plaintiff had indicated consent" inadmissible?  If that is the
>case, how would one mount a defense when sexual activity had occurred?

No.  If the defence is "the plaintiff indicated consent", then it
becomes a matter of one person's word against another.  The case may
then depend on medical evidence (most rape has some violence associated
with it - damaged clothing, bruising, etc.).  If the medical evidence
was inconclusive then "not proven" could be returned.

As a parallel example, if two men have a fight (with no witnesses).  If
one charges the other with assault, who is deemed to be correct?

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian