From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.032641.23855@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.053904.11401@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
>Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>>
>>Well, if by 'killing a possible person' you mean taking actions designed
>>to kill any person who might be there, I can think of two offhand: 
>>shooting at a man-shaped pile of rags in a dark alley, and dropping large
>>rocks off an overpass onto the busy highway below.  Manslaughter.
>
>You seem to be confusing "possibly killing a person" with "killing a possible
>person". Those are not interchangeable terms.

I know.  I'm trying to probe the legal nature of Elizabeth's 'possible
person'.  That's why I began with 'if', and made another guess in the next
paragraph:

>>Or do you mean to define a new legal category, inferior to personhood,
>>called 'possible personhood'?  Have you thought about the implications of
>>doing that?
>
>Whereas you define a new legal category, even _more_ inferior to personhood,
>called "human organism non-personhood"? 

New?  What about the dead?

I'm simply putting fetuses into the old category of non-personhood -- we
no more need to neologize it with the modifier 'human organism' than we
need to speak of, say, chocolate-cake non-personhood, or wombat
non-personhood.

>You're criticizing her for a watered-down form
>of what you take to extremes, hypocrite.

No, Kevin.  I'm criticizing her for an incoherent approach to the problem.
I think that a doctrine of fetal personhood, in any form, spells legal
disaster -- it gives new and inappropriate powers to government, and
encourages meddling with the concept of constitutional rights.

Elizabeth's position is no kin to mine.

>>no power in our society (outside military contexts) has the legal
>>authority to 'balance' rights to survival among two living persons.  Not
>>the courts, and certainly not doctors.  We may acquit self-defense
>>afterwards, but we can't authorize manslaughter in advance.  Which is a
>>very, very good thing when you think about it.
>
>Balderdash. Legislators and judges balance rights all the time. Our entire
>body of law is a gargantuan balancing act. 

I was speaking specifically of the right to *survival*.  No power in our
society can legitimately resolve conflicts between two parties' rights to
survive, and mandate killing the loser.  Some rights *can't* be 'balanced'
by government; some conflicts fall outside the proper range of
governmental power.  This is one of 'em.

>Please clearly identify this "infectiously rotten" [sic] premise.

The premise that any personhood rights can be consistently granted to
fetuses under our legal system.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                    suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion