From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:17:11 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> Sophistry indeed.  The fundamental genetic makeup also changes when
>|> the sperm cells are created from the parent cell.  And twins change
>|> the same genes.  Does that make one twin a non-person and both sperm
>|> cells full persons?
>
>	As we have already agreed elsewhere, an individual of a given species is
>any being which will, if it does not die first, eventually develop into an adult
>of that species.  Sperm will never develop into adult human beings.  Twins will.

Sperm will _never_ develop into adult human beings?!?  I think you
want to correct that statement.

>|> >	*sigh*  Here we go again.  Okay, I'll tell you one more
>|> >time: I do not set any criteria per se for personhood because I do
>|> >not know when personhood begins.  But I have noticed that no other
>|> 
>|> Then you are not in favor of legislation prohibiting or limiting
>|> abortions?
>
>	No, I am in favor of such legislation.  I am saying we cannot KNOW
>exactly when personhood begins, but I'm not saying we can't adopt an 
> operational >definition.  I'm merely saying that the definition ought to be 
> a liberal one.  It should err on the side of safety.

On the side of safety for _who_?

>	General consensus in and of itself is completely inadequate.  If general
>consensus were sufficient, then German Jews in WWII were NOT persons.
>	It would follow from that that there was no fundamental moral reason why
>Hitler shouldn't have killed the Jews.  I find such a conclusion woefully
>inadequate.

So instead you seek to impose your view on the general populace
because you believe you are correct.  Hmmm.  Sounds familiar.  I'll
bet your reasons are just as good as were the Nazi's.

>|> > I oppose using arbitrary opinions to define personhood, for then
>|> >things like slavery and Nazi Germany can happen in a philosophically
>|> >justifiable manner.
>|> 
>|> Conception is no less arbitrary than is birth.
>
>	Conception is infinitely less arbitrary.  Conception marks the creation
>of a new being of a species; birth marks a change of the physical location of
>that being.

As has been pointed out many times, conception does not mark the
creation of a new being.  It is only one of many stages along the way.
If your statement were correct, then twins would be impossible,
parthenogenesis would be impossible, cloning would be impossible.
The fact that all of these are quite possible indicates that your
statement is incorrect.

>If you say that the state grants rights, it follows that the state grants
>the right to privacy.  Hence, the state can retract that right.  It follows that
>if I can get enough people together I can justifiably remove this right to
>privacy and force everybody to live under a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.

I thought that much would have been obvious.  It is certainly stated
so in the US constitution.

>Gee, Ray.  I'm sure the fundies would thank you for your recognition that
>their form of government is as valid as a free republic.

That does not follow.  As you yourself have pointed out, a majority
does not necessarily make a _right_ majority.

>Do you admit that your philosophy of government sets every government in
>history, from Hitler to Genghis Khan to the Aztec human sacrifices to the United
>States on a morally equal footing?

How about that.  Maybe the best measure of the success of any society/
government is how well its citizens prosper.

>|> >	You're implying here that human rights are not "recognized"
>|> >as inherent, but "granted" by some human authority.
>|> 
>|> Bingo.
>
>	Where does the government get its right to grant rights?  What
>fundamental moral reason is there for any person to obey any law?  And if there
>isn't any such moral reason, aren't you really an advocate of hedonism and
>anarchy?

You sure do like to make unwarranted leaps of logic, don't you?
Governments are given the right to grant rights by the people.  There
is no fundamental moral reason to obey laws (although there are many
practical reasons to do so).  And even if laws are amoral, that
doesn't prevent a person from obeying them for moral reasons.  Or
social reasons.  (after all, what are laws but a codification of
social "laws"?)

>|> >	People can do things which cause them to waive their rights
>|> >to life, liberty, and property.  But until such a deed is done,
>|> >every human being has these rights.
>|> 
>|> If rights are inalienable (as you claim?) then how can they be waived?
>
>	Depends on what you mean by "inalienable."  By inalienable, I mean they
>can't be unilaterally abrogated.  I believe that rights "belong" to a person. 
>Surely you'd agree that if I really and truly own something, I can give it away. 
>So with rights.

"Inalienable" means not transferrable or surrenderable.  Even so, can
you name just one right that every person has?  And for clarity, a
simple measure of what your consider to be a person will be useful
(e.g., from birth onward).

>|> Certain actions are taken by society as justification for taking away
>|> some rights.
>
>	What actions?  What rights?

Murder.  Liberty. (for example)

>|>  Some rights (such as right to property) are limited
>|> from the start.  Even a "right to life" can be taken away without any
>|> explicit action on the part of the victim.
>
>	I disagree totally.
>	When a government taxes someone, it incurs a proportional obligation to
>serve.  A government which merely takes without proportionally serving is
>STEALING.
>	Taxation in this context merely amounts to paying for goods and services
>received.  If you don't like the social compact in this situation, you can always
>move to another country.  Or you can try to change the balance in this one.  But
>you should never pay for something you don't receive.

Consider anti-trust laws and wars.

>|> I should have said that _many_ of the rights of children don't exist
>|> until majority.  Clearly children may not be killed, while embryos
>|> may.
>
>	What fundamental moral reason is there for not killing children?

Is there such a thing as an "absolute moral", or is it just that
killing children is wrong because people view it to be wrong?

>|> Parents can acquire children, dispose of them, make them do work,
>|> take any property they may have, and beat them.  While the situations
>|> are not exactly similar and the lot of children _is_ improving, they 
>|> are not all that different, either.
>
>	You're using loaded words.  Parents can care for children, but they do
>not own them.  They cannot dispose of them (well, I don't know exactly what you
>mean by that...).  They can make them dfo work, but we have limitations on such
>work in the form of child labor laws.  Parents may spank children, but they may
>not permanently injure them; this is clearly child abuse.
>	Slavery has certain very mild similarities to childhood, but the
>differences are enormous.  The more I think about it, the more certain I am the
>your analogy fails.  Parents control their children FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
>CHILDREN, not for the parents benefit; a master controls his or her slave for the
>master's benefit, not for the slaves.

"Adoption" is the term used for acquiring children and disposing of
them.  Children cannot be employed, but they can be made to work.
Beatings may not permanently injure a child, but that is more a matter
of degree than a fundamental difference.  And as for parents acting for
the benefit of the child, well, let's just say that there are plenty
of examples to the contrary.

>|> The property may be held in trust; the right does not exist.
>
>	You assert that the right does not exist?  Prove it.

Try registering title to a house in the sole name of a two year old.

>|> To have a right means to have free exercise of that right.  Being
>|> permitted to do something is just that: permission.
>
>	Not true.  To own an inheritance doesn't necessarily mean the right to
>use it in an unlimited way.

An adult may give an entire $50,000 estate to charity, a 5 year old
may not without _permission_ of an adult.

>|> It is his only if he meets the conditions.  Until then it is held by
>|> someone else and is NOT his.
>
>	It is HIS inheritance...IF he chooses to meet the conditions.  But if he
>meets those conditions, then nobody can take it from him.

If he meets the conditions it will become his property and he can do
as he wishes with it.  Until then it is not.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche