From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 00:03:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct6.195947.2528@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
|> >, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> >|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
|> >|> >	A member of the human species, if not killed and if given basic
|> >|> >nutrition, will develop into an adult human being.  Nothing else will.  Not a
|> >|> >sperm.  Not an egg.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Two mistakes.  First, an embryo _may_ grow into an adult human being.  Many
|> >|> don't.  Many children don't.  Many zygotes don't.  Many eggs don't.  (notice
|> >|> any similarities?)
|> >
|> >	I said "if not killed."  Even if eggs don't die, they will NEVER develop
|> >into adult human beings unless fertilized.
|> 
|> Yup, eggs won't develop into adults unless they first get fertilized,
|> and zygotes won't develop into adults unless they first implant.
|> Again, notice any similarities here?

	Pure sophistry.  Fertilization changes the fundamental
genetic makeup of a being, transforming it into a new being. 
Implantation does not.

|> >|>The term is pro-CHOICE, git. That means you get the choice to CHOOSE your
|> >|>own course of action. Why should you get the option of forcing other people's
|> >|> behavior while I do not?
|> >	THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.  YOU MUST SET SOME UNIVERSAL POINT FOR
|> >PERSONHOOD SOMEWHERE OR I CAN CHOOSE TO DEFINE YOU AS A NON-PERSON AND KILL YOU.
|> >	Understand?
|> 
|> Yup.  Now then, why do _you_ get to choose the point?  I like birth as
|> a legal point of personhood (my personal point is much earlier) for
|> various reasons.  Conception is still absurdly impractical.

	*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
species besides humans contains beings which are PROVABLY persons. 
Since no other species can offer even one instance of a member of
that species which is provably a person, it is reasonable to assume
that no members of that species are persons (even though this
assumption may be false).  But since humanity
contains many persons, and since we cannot know for certain which of
them are persons and which are not (unless you claim you CAN be
certain), I maintain that any division among human beings is
arbitrary -- ultimately a matter of personal opinion, not knowledge.
 I oppose using arbitrary opinions to define personhood, for then
things like slavery and Nazi Germany can happen in a philosophically
justifiable manner.

|> >|> What, you think that everyone is entitled to the same rights, but children
|> >|> can't exercise their rights?  Doublespeak at its finest.
|> >
|> >	I believe every living human being has the rights to life, liberty and
|> >property, but because of the special circumstances and relationships involved in
|> >parenting, parents hold the rights of their children IN TRUST until those
|> >children are able to exercize them for their own benefit without violating the
|> >rights of others.
|> 
|> The rights of children don't exist until majority.  Children may not
|> vote, own property, or have the freedom do to as they wish.  Their
|> parent's do not get these rights either.

	Then who grants them rights?  The state?  Their parents? 
Who?
	You're implying here that human rights are not "recognized"
as inherent, but "granted" by some human authority.
	What authority?

|> Further, it is clear that every human being does NOT have the right to
|> life, liberty and property as each of these can and is taken from
|> people on a regular basis, and with the support of society at large.

	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 you say children don't have a right to life, it follows that there is
|> >no fundamental moral reason why parents cannot kill their children.  If you 
|> >say that children do not have a right to liberty, there is no fundamental 
|> >moral reason why parents cannot enslave their children and make them do 
|> >anything.  If you say that children do not have a right to property, then 
|> >you effectively take away their right to life as well, for the reason they 
|> >have a right to life is because they own their own bodies.
|> 
|> 1) I never said children don't have a right to life.  I will say that
|> a zygote/embryo doesn't.

	Contraire!  You said "the rights of children don't exist
until majority."  So which is it?  Do children have rights before
majority or do they not?

|> 2) Nobody who has ever dealt with children can honestly say that they
|> have any right to liberty.  How many 8 year olds do you see flying to
|> Cancun for the weekend?

	Not many, but this does not mean they don't have a right to
liberty.  Rights can be held in trust just as an estate can be held
in trust.  A child might "own" an estate in every legal sense but
not be able to use it except at certain times and under certain
conditions because it is held in trust.

|> 3) Children are very much de-facto slaves.  If you think otherwise, I
|> would like to hear what differences you think there are between
|> slavery and the situation of the aforementioned 8 year old.

	The situations are worlds apart.  A slave-owner owns his
slave like he owns a piece of furniture.  He can beat the slave,
torture the slave, rape the slave, even kill the slave.  Parents do
not "own" their children: they are obliged to raise them to the best
of their ability, but they cannot brutally beat their children, they
cannot rape their children, they certainly cannot kill their
children.
	Parents CAN make their children do things which are
necessary to the child's well-being and development, but this is
hardly slavery.

|> 4) The right of children to own property tends to be very limited, if
|> it exists at all.  A parent may take away a young child's toy (aka,
|> property) at any time for any reason.  The child does not have any
|> right to that property.

	The right to property is exactly like the right to liberty
in that it is held in trust.  This does not mean it does not exist.

|> >	On the other hand, if you say that children should have unrestricted run
|> >of those rights, then you sentence them to death, since few children, left to
|> >themselves, will know not to walk when cars are coming, etc.  If you say that
|> >children should be able to do anything adults can do, they will likely hurt
|> >themselves and others in the process.
|> >	I maintain that children DO have rights -- the same rights as anyone --
|> >not as gifts or privileges from the government or from their parents, but as
|> >fundamental, inalienable rights.  I balance that position by maintaining that
|> >circumstances demand that parents hold their childrens' rights in trust.
|> 
|> So you think children have the right to life, liberty, and property,
|> but are not permitted to exercise those rights?!?

	They should be permitted limited exercize of those rights.

|> Do you have any
|> notion just how ridiculous that is?

	It's no more ridiculous than Grandfather A passing an
inheritance to Grandson B (who is, say, 24 years old) subject to the
condition that the grandson must first obtain a college degree
before he can use the money for any other purpose.  Grandson B OWNS
the money -- it is his.  (It certainly doesn't belong to anyone
else!)  But the fact that the money is HIS inheritance does not mean
he can do anything he wishes to do with it.

Steve

Why settle for the lesser evil?
	Cthulhu in '92