From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:52:55 GMT

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>Re: [the right to use lethal force]
>> Rape implies the use of force, which may result in the death of
>> the potential rape victim. 

> If the attacker makes it clear that he won't harm the victim, if
> the victim does not resist, does the victim have the right to use
> lethal force simply to prevent physical violation?

If the victim uses lethal force, then they are resisting. Hence, you
cannot say that the victim "does not resist." 

>> If I am dying, then no person can prevent a doctor from healing me. 

> BZZZZZT. How about someone from the accounting department at the
> hospital?

What I meant to say was, no person should be allowed to prevent a
doctor from healing me, if the doctor wants to heal me.

>> But, I cannot force any person to support me against their will. 
>> I should not be able to force a doctor to heal me.

> No, but you'd like to be able to force a woman to remain pregnant.

No, I've stated that no human should be forced to support another against
their will. They should not, however, have the right to kill another human,
except in self-defense.  

>> All human life should have the right to exist. A fetus is a 
>> human life, and therefore it should have the right to exist.

> A severed wart is human life, too. 

If the cells in a wart are alive, then yes, it is part of a human life, 
and it has the right to exist. But, a human should have the right to 
destroy all, or part of itself. A wart is part of a human, so that human 
should be allowed to destroy the wart. A fetus is not part of any other
human, it is a separate human life, and so it should not be destroyed by
any other human. 

Substitute "sperm" or "unfertilized egg" for the "wart", and you have 
the same answer. 

> She's 22 times more likely to die from carrying a pregnancy to 
> term than from a first-trimester abortion. Non-lethal damage is
> almost inevitable.

The presence of the fetus does not always immediately threaten the woman's
existence. 

> You have still not given any good reasons for granting any 
> rights to a fetus.

A fetus is a human life, and no other human can place a value on its
existence. Give me your reasoning why the fetus should not be granted 
rights, and which is NOT based upon a subjective judgement of the 
relative value of human life. 

>> I cannot kill a person who threatens to kill me in the
>> distant future. I may kill them if they threaten my immediate existence.

> Many wartime defense scenarios do exactly that. (Kill those who 
> pose a distant threat to our lives, that is.)

Some scenarios, but not all.

> You assign the same rights to a small, barely differentiated blob
> of cells as you would to a thinking, living breathing woman who may
> have several born children depending on her for nurturance and 
> livelihood? You have a very high opinion of women, don't you?

Yes, I have a very high opinion of all human life, whether it is a 
group of cells, or a fully developed adult. But I do not force my 
opinion on anyone else. I would allow all forms of human life to judge
their own existence, regardless of their functionality, or lack of.

>> The woman should have the right to refuse to support the fetus. But no
>> person should be allowed to kill the fetus, or to prevent others from
>> supporting the fetus. 

> This is a convoluted approach. 

My definition of rights appears convoluted, but it is very consistent
with the premise that all forms of human life should have a right to exist. 

My approach allows for abortion under certain circumstances, i.e. induced 
abortions where the fetus is not killed by another person, but where it 
dies from a lack of support. But, I might argue that these abortions may 
prevent other humans from giving assistance to the fetus, and therefore 
these types of abortions may violate the right of the fetus to receive 
assistance from others (assuming that the fetus is not stillborn).

It does not generally allow for vacuum suction, or saline injection, 
since these methods generally kill the fetus before it would die from 
a lack of support. 

If medical science advanced to the point where the fetus could be
transferred intact from one human to another without killing it, 
then my approach would allow for that action. 

> You would allow the fetus to be 
> removed and allowed to die slowly from lack of support (at an
> exponentially increased expense) but not allow simple abortion.
> Is that correct?

Yes. But, no person should prevent the fetus from receiving assistance
after it is removed. Humans who want to support the fetus should be
allowed to do so, but no human should be forced to support the fetus. 
Therefore, the cost of supporting the fetus is placed upon those who
wish to support it voluntarily. 

>> Define "bodily autonomy".

> The right to determine the uses to which one's body may be put.
> Includes the right to withhold consent for sexual activity,
> even from a spouse, the right not to be forced to perform
> slave labor, 

I support those rights.

> and the right to terminate  the attatchment of
> any other organism, internal or external, that attatches itself
> to one's body. The latter depends on available medical care,
> whether you're talking about abortion or treatment for a
> parasitic condition.

I support the right to terminate the attachment of any organism,
but not the right to kill a human organism, if it does not threaten
a person's immediate existence.  

Does bodily autonomy only relate to the concept of physical attachment, 
or does it include other types of attachment as well? What rights 
does a person have when another human organism attaches to them
in a non-physical manner (like for example, a financial attachment)?

>> No human can judge the value of another human life, because a
>> value judgement is merely an opinion, a subjective judgement, 
>> which is valid only to oneself. No person should be allowed to kill
>> the mentally retarded, or the autistic, or humans born without a brain, 
>> simply because their lives are not valued by some persons. 

> Are these individuals living off the physical resources of a thinking,
> feeling, contributing member of society?

The value of a human does not depend on their physical attachment
to anything. They are human lives, and are worthy of existence.
Is a human life any less worthy because it is attached to a
respirator? Is it less worthy because it is attached to another human? 

>> A human can only judge its own existence, not the existence of others. 

> You really don't address the woman much in this diatribe. 

Do you have any objection to the premise that no human can judge
the value of another human's existence? 

> A fetus is incapable of judgement, but a woman is not. 

A person in a coma is also incapable of judgement. 

> She should have the right to determine how her physical resources are 
> used. 

That is correct.

> What if a 
> woman objects to her pregnant state so strongly that her own existence
> is worthless to her if she has to continue pregnancy? (This is NOT
> hypothetical. I have personally seen a woman take action which had
> about a 90% liklihood of killing her, and a 99% chance of causing a
> miscarriage if she survived.) If she commits suicide while pregnant,
> she's denied the fetus a right to exist. 

If she commits suicide, then she has denied support to the fetus, she
has not denied the fetus the right to exist. She should not be allowed to 
kill the fetus, or to prevent others from helping the fetus, if she commits 
suicide. She should not be allowed to kill herself in such a manner that 
directly causes the death of the fetus, or which prevents others from 
helping the fetus.

> Would you would deny her
> the right to judge the value of her _own_ existence while pregnant?

No. 

> Perhaps you don't realize it, but you've created a subclass of
> humans with _less_ rights than all the others, even zygotes. 

What subclass is that? All human life should have an equal right to exist.
Any other definition automatically creates a subclass of humans.

> You will, I hope, understand why I do not wish to embrace this body of
> thought, much less to codify it into law.

Yes I understand.