From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: A new test of rights? (Was: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:11:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.035654.5952@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug  
Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <sf6g5INNmro@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> 
>            djd@east.sun.com (Dave Damkoehler - Sun BOS Editor) writes:
> >jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:
> 
> >> Basically, all rights can be waived; if they couldn't, they
> >> would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the right
> >> to life because it can't waive it.
> 
> > Replace "fetus" with "newborn," and I believe you have a theory
> > that you would not want to present.
> 
> Why don't you come right out and say it? She's making an argument for
> infanticide.

Pardon me? A newborn, once it's outside the woman's body, is not
conflicting with her rights. Here's my response to Dave (and BTW,
why did you respond to his note and not mine?):

|In article <sf6g5INNmro@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> djd@agent99.East.Sun.COM  
|(Dave Damkoehler - Sun BOS Editor) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr14.171626.15538@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>  
|jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:
|> 
|> 	>Basically, all rights can be waived; if they couldn't, they
|> 	>would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the right
|> 	>to life because it can't waive it.
|> 
|> I understand the point you are trying to make, but it's seriously 
|> flawed.
|> A newborn infant also cannot consciously choose to waive his or her
|> rights;

|That I understand, but when it's out of the woman's body, its existence
|is no longer is in conflict with her rights.

|> ...mentally incompetent people also cannot consciously choose to
|> waive their rights.

|I'm sorry, but again his/her life, whether s/he could or would choose
|to live it, is not in direct conflict with any other person's rights.
|As for another case, those terminally ill or in a coma, I should have 
|said here (and did say in another post) that the fetus has _not yet_
|had a conscious thought. 

|> Replace "fetus" with "newborn," and I believe you
|> have a theory that you would not want to present.

|True. My point, which I'll try to make clearer in the future, is that
|unless we somehow knew whether a fetus would want to exercise any right
|to life, we cannot abridge the rights of the pregnant woman, whose
|wishes can be known. 

|> The ability to waive one's rights is not, to my knowledge, recognized
|> anywhere as a test of Constitutional rights. Your side of this debate
|> has many profound Constitutional-rights arguments to offer. But this is
|> not one of them.

|But do you not agree that the definition of a right includes an option 
|to not exercise it? For example, a government allowing me to bear arms
|is a far cry from one forcing me to do so.

|Thanks for your input, Dave.

And thank you for your flames, Doug.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion