From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Answer to Woodyatt's 'jisms (syllogisms, that is)
Summary: You *DO* claim to post from colostate.edu, don't you? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 18:58:50 GMT

Proving once again that he's living in a fantasy world that's about
three hours driving time and a couple of universes away from Alice's
WonderLand...

In article <Oct08.005257.18791@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>
>	When you have sex, you know you might become pregnant.  If you do, you

That depends.  A woman who has had a tubilagation, or a man who has had
a vasectomy can have knowing that they will _never_ become (or get somebody)
pregnant.

>are responsible for the well-being of the person who you have CAUSED to be in
>your body.  You cannot wantonly kill that person; you must take every reasonable
>step within your power to protect the life and safety of the person you have
>endangered.

Since there is no law that says anything remotely like this, I'll assume
that this is just your opinion.

>	When the life of the mother is in danger, however, we are talking about a
>life vs. a life.  Who is to say which life is more important?  Both lives are
>equally threatened.

Let's err on the side of caution, and go with the Living, Breathing, Pregnant
Woman, ok?

>	When two lives of equal value are threatened (an either-or proposition),
>the state can prefer one life over the other.  The baby hasn't done anything
>wrong, true; but neither has the mother, two lives are at stake, and one or the
>other (or both) will die if nothing is done.

Let's err on the side of caution, ok?  If you allow the Living, Breathing,
Pregnant Woman to die, the "WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornChild" _will_ (most likely)
die.  If we abort the "WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornChild", the woman _will_ (most
likely) live.

>	When a mother has sex, she consents to take every reasonable step within
>her power to protect the life and safety of the person her act creates.  But she

Since there is no law even remotely like this anywhere, I'll assume this is
just your opinion.

>does not for that reason necessarily consent to abide any serious threat to her
>life.  To offer an analogy frequently used on t.a, if I hit someone else's car, I
>must do everything within my power to save the people I injured, but this does
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope, nope, nope.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Don't you know anything about
law?

>not mean I must donate my kidneys.  If they die, I may owe something to their
>families (who also lost something due to my negligence).  But in the case of an
>unborn baby, the parents ARE the family; if they wish to sue themselves, fine,
>but it seems a bit odd.

At the same time, if the parents DON'T wish to sue themselves, then that
is their perogitive.

>	On the other hand, if I simply left the people I had injured by the
>roadside, I'd be guilty of willful criminal negligence.  Worse yet, if I killed

Nope.  Nope.  Nope.  Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.  You can get busted for leaving
the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident.  You _CANNOT_
be busted for manslaughter, or anything else if you call the cops, tell them
that you were in an accident, and fail to tell them about the driver of the
other car who is laying there with a sucking chest wound.  I'm not a lawyer,
although Kevin Darcy plays one on the net.  Your milage may vary.

>them to avoid the problem I'd be guilty of murder in the first degree.  I must do

That's very true.  American Society considers it PoorForm[tm] to kill
people after running into them.

>everything within my power to save the lives of the people I injured; but this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope.  Nope.  Nope.  Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.  You don't have to do anything.
You can stand over them and twiddle your thumbs, and the state can't do a
thing to you.

>does not mean I must substantially threaten my own life to do so.  Negligence is

You don't have to even unsubstantially threaten your own life to do so.

>the key.  If I do everything I can short of substantially threatening my own life,
>then my duties to the injured person are discharged (though not necessarily my
>responsibility to the family).

If any of this stuff was actually the law, you might have a point.  It's not.

Why do you keep bringing it up?

>
>Steve

(Who is apparantly living somewhere other than the Earth...)



--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FWA=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41477 alt.abortion.inequity:4308 alt.birthright:531