From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:02:18 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

You have some serious cross-posting habits, Mr. Steeves, but I'll
play.

goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
# JHW> Here.  Play with this:
# 
# JHW> Frozen embryos.  While in transit through another sovereign nation,
# JHW> they are taken into custody by agents of that foreign nation, wherein
# JHW> they expire as a result of mistreatment.  Since embryos are persons,
# JHW> and therefore *not* property under U.S. law, the foreign nation is
# JHW> `responsible' for the death of those `persons' rather than the
# JHW> destruction of property
#      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# 
# Ah, so you *would* consider embryos as property, then?

Really, Mr. Steeves, brush up on your reading comprehension.  I did
not imply that.  Allow me to clear things up for you though... in my
view, zygotes/embryos/fetuses/etcetera present a difficult problem in
that we pathetic humans have a bad tendency to classify everything
that isn't a person as property, either private or (get this, it's a
gas) public -- meaning something that isn't a person is either owned
by someone, some group or by everybody.  Some humans have a terribly
bad habit of depersonalizing other humans (live *born* humans) so that
they may be considered property, but by and by we're arriving at a
stage in our development where most of us don't think of living,
breathing, born, human persons as potentially someone's property.

We typically don't want to consider zygotes/embryos/fetuses/etcetera
as persons for various reasons, yet considering them to be property
makes a few people ill at ease, and I'm not sure our modern legal
system has had the cojones to approach the problem seriously.

Myself, I think that inventing a third class of objects just for
zygotes/embryos/fetuses/etcetera that is neither `property' nor
`persons' is the most difficult, but perhaps the most prudent course
of action.

In the absence of precedent set by the courts, I think what we
currently have is a situation where frozen embryos are currently
considered to be property, and that's certainly better than
considering them persons.

# This wasn't meant to be taken as a flame ; I'm just curious as to why
# you would want to admit this, while many other "Pro choice" people
# have stayed clear of using terminology such as this, perhaps out of
# fear of being flamed by "pro-lifers" who might accuse them of
# believing potential children as merely someone's property.

I have little trouble with this concept.  I can deal with the idea
that anything that isn't a person can be property.  I can deal with
flames from pro-`life'rs too.  Fact, it's one of my hobbies.

It's coming to grips with the idea that *nothing* is private property
that takes work, but that's another thread entirely.

# Of course, if embryos *are* property, then why could it not be argued
# that *both* of the people who contributed to its creation, should have
# rights to "its" disposition?

Because personal property rights don't work that way.  The only people
who have a right to control private property are the owners of the
property.  (Here in the U.S.A., we have a concept that I think is
referred to as `eminent domain,' which basically means that we have
given the government power to confiscate personal property for public
purposes with fair compensation -- I doubt you want to play the
`eminent domain' game with embryos, though.)

#                              Naturally, it would be a different
# matter when the embryo is located in someone else's body, but if I
# recall correctly, situations where two parties have joint ownership,
# but only party has exclusive rights to the disposition of that
# property, the other party *does* receive compensation if that property
# is sold, used for profit, or (if you have already guessed where I'm
# headed...), destroyed.

Yeah, I see where you're going -- so I'll just yank on the chain
labelled `joint ownership?' and pull you back into the real world.  I
remind you that ownership is not the same as custody, and in the case
of an embryo in a woman's womb (should we agree for the sake of argument
to consider it `property') any claim a man might make to joint
ownership is inherently suspicious.

# I realise that this is a Devil's Advocate argument, but I should say
# right from the start that I consider it absolutely invidious to
# consider unborn persons as property,

Heh.  I consider it an egregious fallacy to consider `unborn persons'
to be anything other than an oxymoron.  We should just chalk this up
to a difference of opinion (whilst each of us tries to influence the
legal system in our own puny ways to adopt the view that the other of
us is a lunatic and ought to be summarily ignored).

#                                      *but* if they *were* considered
# as such, would there not be some sort of financial compensation owing
# to men for involuntary loss of property after an abortion??

No.  Men would experience no loss of property as a result of a woman's
abortion unless they have a valid claim to joint ownership to the
product of conception, which as I've already said is inherently a
dicey proposal.  Embryos don't often come with pink slips or receipts,
you know.

# (Boy, I can just *imagine* the flameworks starting now...)

You do seem to have an active imagination; I will compliment you for
that.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

P.S.  Please, Mr. Steeves, set your right margin <= 75 characters.
Newsgroups: misc.legal