From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:59:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct9.225452.8670@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> 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?

	As we have already agreed elsewhere, an individual of a given species is
any being which will, if it does not die first, eventually develop into an adult
of that species.  Sperm will never develop into adult human beings.  Twins will.

|> >|> 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?

	No, I am in favor of such legislation.  I am saying we cannot KNOW
exactly when personhood begins, but I'm not saying we can't adopt an operational
definition.  I'm merely saying that the definition ought to be a liberal one.  It
should err on the side of safety.

|> >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.

	General consensus in and of itself is completely inadequate.  If general
consensus were sufficient, then German Jews in WWII were NOT persons.
	It would follow from that that there was no fundamental moral reason why
Hitler shouldn't have killed the Jews.  I find such a conclusion woefully
inadequate.

|> > 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.

	Conception is infinitely less arbitrary.  Conception marks the creation
of a new being of a species; birth marks a change of the physical location of
that being.

|> >|> 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.

	If you say that the state grants rights, it follows that the state grants
the right to privacy.  Hence, the state can retract that right.  It follows that
if I can get enough people together I can justifiably remove this right to
privacy and force everybody to live under a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.
	Gee, Ray.  I'm sure the fundies would thank you for your recognition that
their form of government is as valid as a free republic.
	Do you admit that your philosophy of government sets every government in
history, from Hitler to Genghis Khan to the Aztec human sacrifices to the United
States on a morally equal footing?

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

	Where does the government get its right to grant rights?  What
fundamental moral reason is there for any person to obey any law?  And if there
isn't any such moral reason, aren't you really an advocate of hedonism and
anarchy?

|> >|> 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?

	Depends on what you mean by "inalienable."  By inalienable, I mean they
can't be unilaterally abrogated.  I believe that rights "belong" to a person. 
Surely you'd agree that if I really and truly own something, I can give it away. 
So with rights.

|> Certain actions are taken by society as justification for taking away
|> some rights.

	What actions?  What 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.

	I disagree totally.
	When a government taxes someone, it incurs a proportional obligation to
serve.  A government which merely takes without proportionally serving is
STEALING.
	Taxation in this context merely amounts to paying for goods and services
received.  If you don't like the social compact in this situation, you can always
move to another country.  Or you can try to change the balance in this one.  But
you should never pay for something you don't receive.

|> >|> 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.

	What fundamental moral reason is there for not killing children?

|> >|> 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.

	We're just looking at this differently.  I believe the child does have a
right to property in that he owns his own body; but I believe this right can be
operationally regulated by parents for his or her benefit.  I do not believe this
violates his rights any more than granting someone an inheritance subject to
certain conditions nullifies the inheritance.

|> >|> 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.

	Slave owners in the United States very frequently killed their slaves. 
But why limit ourselves to slavery in the United States?  I t was a common
institution everywhere in the world.  Masters didn't kill their slaves, not
because they didn't have a right to do so, but because it woulde have been
unprofitable.

|> 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.

	You're using loaded words.  Parents can care for children, but they do
not own them.  They cannot dispose of them (well, I don't know exactly what you
mean by that...).  They can make them dfo work, but we have limitations on such
work in the form of child labor laws.  Parents may spank children, but they may
not permanently injure them; this is clearly child abuse.
	Slavery has certain very mild similarities to childhood, but the
differences are enormous.  The more I think about it, the more certain I am the
your analogy fails.  Parents control their children FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CHILDREN, not for the parents benefit; a master controls his or her slave for the
master's benefit, not for the slaves.

|> >|> 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.

	You assert that the right does not exist?  Prove it.

|> >|> 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.

	Not true.  To own an inheritance doesn't necessarily mean the right to
use it in an unlimited way.

|> >	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.

	It is HIS inheritance...IF he chooses to meet the conditions.  But if he
meets those conditions, then nobody can take it from him.
	The child's rights are his...IF he obeys the rules and observes the
limitations laid down by his parents.  But if he obeys those rules and observes
those limitations, then those rights are his and eventually he will be able to
exercize them as a free agent.

|> 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.

	I believe that to be the case only because of the special circumstances
surrounding parenthood.  I believe that aprents incur an obligation to care for
their children, and in return, the children's rights are to be held in trust by
the parent.

Steve

You will find that government is the kind of organization which, though it does
big things badly, does small things badly too.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion