From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Rights. Was: Re: Children, Children
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:07:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <1992Apr7.013159.7975@news.eng.convex.com> by jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson):

> In article <1992Apr3.122228.11776@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org, Christopher
> Morton writes:
> >
> >If you are INCAPABLE of knowing that your rights EXIST, much
> >less are being violated, you don't have any.
> >
> 
> I think this question has been asked already, but I've yet to read where
> you answer it, so let me ask you again:

I've answered it, and in two networks and at least three newsgroups!

>     Severely brain-damaged children (or brain-deficient, as in the case of 
>     anancephalic children) are INCAPABLE of knowing that their rights EXIST,
>     much less of knowing if their rights are being violated, so does this
>     mean they don't have any rights?

They are incapable as INDIVIDUALS.  They are ABNORMAL examples of a class which
generally CAN understand its rights.  They do not have ALL the rights that you
do, such as the right to contract.  They DO have the basic rights, such as the
right to life, which accrue to HUMANS.

>     Would it be ethical to use them in medical experiments?

No.

>     Would it be ethical to drop them head first into boiling water?

To what end?  They cannot by and large COMMIT a capital crime, much less be
tried for it, therefore capital punishment is out.  Let me save you some time
by saying up front that my answer to "can people be eaten, skinned,           
experimented upon involuntarily, etc?" will always (or almost so) be NO.

>     Would it be ethical (note, I didn't say legal) to eat them?

See above.

> 
> If your answer to any of these questions is "No," then why?  Such persons fail
> to meet the criteria you assert above as necessary for the granting of rights.

No they don't.  As I've said innumerable times here and elsewhere, if you have
to base you entire case on the gross exception, you don't HAVE a case.  SOME
humans are DEFECTIVE and are incapable of exercising CERTAIN rights.  They are
still HUMAN and still have the basic rights of a HUMAN.  It is NORMAL for a
human to understand these HUMAN rights.  It's logically flawed to base your
ENTIRE case on a DEFECTIVE human, while ignoring that ALL of the CLASS to 
whom you wish to extend "rights" has the same inability as the EXCEPTIONAL
human.  That you and others are incapable of seeing this is an indication of
how far you're willing to stretch to make your case.  It just doesn't work.

> Chris, I've been following this debate, and it seems to me that you
> often fail to answer direct questions when your answer to those questions
> would refute some previous assertion of yours.  

No, I think that you've probably missed a LOT of what I've said on the subject
since I've addressed this very issue here and in exactly the same terms.  If
you don't read EVERY message, I'm sure you've missed a lot of messages.  I know
I don't read every message, and it's just something that I accept.

At various times, I've inadvertantly dropped threads.  I co-moderate two
FidoNet newsgroups, which requires me to read EVERY message in both of them,
and do the moderator thing when required.  I missed some messages a short while
ago because of that and the rate at which the system I call turns over
messages.  Having said that, this is by my estimation, at LEAST the third time
that I've addressed this issue here.  As near as I can tell, my answers have
remained the same.  Now if you were looking for a different answer, or if you
were looking for me to argue from a point of view more easy for you to
refute, all I can say is that life is full of little disappointments.... :)

> Please don't skirt this one.

I don't think you can truthfully accuse me of this now.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals