From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:54:52 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> 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.

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?

>|> 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

Then you are not in favor of legislation prohibiting or limiting
abortions?

>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.

Or general concensus.

> 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.

>|> 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?

The state directly, and society indirectly.

>	You're implying here that human rights are not "recognized"
>as inherent, but "granted" by some human authority.

Bingo.

>|> 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 rights are inalienable (as you claim?) then how can they be waived?
Certain actions are taken by society as justification for taking away
some rights.  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.

>|> 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?

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.

>|> 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.

Children do not have any right to property.  The property may be held
in trust by someone else until a future date, but until that date the
child is not free to dispose of the property as an owner.  A similar
situation exists with the childs right to travel freely.

>|> 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.

Slavery is no longer legal at all, but even when it was I doubt that
slave owners were free to kill their slaves.  They were certainly
obligated (if not required) to care for their slaves.

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.

>	Parents CAN make their children do things which are
>necessary to the child's well-being and development, but this is
>hardly slavery.

They can also make the children do things which are not necessary to
the child's development.

>|> 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.

The property may be held in trust; the right does not exist.

>|> 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.

To have a right means to have free exercise of that right.  Being
permitted to do something is just that: permission.

>	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.

It is his only if he meets the conditions.  Until then it is held by
someone else and is NOT his.

You have a strange notion of ownership, here.  Apparently you think
that one can own something yet not get to do anything with it.  To me
ownership means that _I_ have that property, NOT someone else.

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