From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:40:36 GMT

In article <Sep20.003644.94110@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <ta3nb-d.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> Long article folks.
>|> 
>|> <Sep15.211521.72108@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> ><g2yn=gf.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> >|> <Sep14.172042.44575@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> >|> ><kzwnk!r.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> >|> >|> <Sep12.071229.20901@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> ...
>|> >	You seem to be assuming that merely because certain legal restrictions
>|> >are applied to certain groups on the basis of age that those groups do not have a
>|> >right to life, liberty or property.
>|> 
>|> No, I'm not assuming that at all.
>
>	The point of all this is that we do not pick an arbirary age
>at which a child's rights are "granted."  We do not and must not
>draw an arbitrary line for when a child's right to life begins. 
>Restricting the voting age to 18 and over is not a violation of
>anybody's rights -- parents are merely holding those rights in trust
>until such time as the right in question can be used for the benefit
>of the child and without violating the rights of everybody else.

This is absolutely absurd, Steven. Rights of minors are not "held in trust",
they simply DON'T EXIST in many cases, such as voting, ability to enter into
contracts, etc.

Do you even understand what a right IS, Steven? It's not just an abstraction
that can be assigned at will to anything whatsoever -- every legal right 
corresponds to a legal DUTY on the part of others. In the case of voting,
no-one has a duty to honor a vote cast by a minor -- the minor can vote as
much as they want, but no-one has a legal duty to honor it. Nor does anyone 
have a legal duty to honor a contract entered into by a minor, generally 
speaking.

None of this entails "holding rights in trust", Steven. That concept seems to 
be purely of your own invention. If you wish to pursue it, then please provide
some supporting authoritative legal cites. 

>|> >	Why?  Unborn children violate no laws.
>|> 
>|> Yes, they do - arbitrarily decided by the woman.  If she *wants* to be
>|> pregnant then no law is broken.  If she doesn't want to be pregnant then
>|> the fetus is trespassing.
>
>	A child is not trespassing because he can be removed at any time.  
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen!

>Just not killed.

If a pre-viable z/e/f is going to die from the removal ANYWAY, what possible
social benefit can there be to NOT killing it first, if such a method reduces
the risks and or economic cost of the procedure? Any restrictions on pre-viable
abortions, short of possibly anaesthetizing the fetus, are little more than
symbolic gestures, are they not?

>Nor neglected to death.  The mother is responsible for the life of her child.

Not Constitutionally, Steven. Only because the _States_ mandate it.

And a state precedent isn't much good against a definitive Supreme Court ruling.

>|> >|> Those in a coma?  Good enough, and technically unable to vioalte the law.
>|> >
>|> >	Those in a coma are NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING.  My dog is probably more aware
>|> >then most comatose folks, and I don't even have a dog.  Why should those who are
>|> >not aware and who may never be aware again be considered persons?
>|> 
>|> Because they were once aware and have a history of communication and
>|> shared experience with other people.  And because they aren't inside of the
>|> body of someone who doesn't want them there.
>
>	OH, I see.  So it's not JUST awareness now, is it?  Now,
>apparently, PAST awareness and "a history of shared communication"
>are important too!  Any other important little details I should know
>about?  Any other criteria besides awareness, past awareness, and
>having a history of shared communication that might crop up later?
>	Hee, hee, hee.  You're making these up as you go along,
>aren't you Gordon?
>	Besides, I don't see what past awareness has to do with
>anything.  Dead people were once aware, but I don't suppose you'll
>be so kind as to give THEM any rights, will you?  Why on earth
>should past awareness count for anything?  Just because you think it
>should?
>	And why should a history of anything have any relevance? 
>Immanuel Kant has an extensive history of shared communication (if
>you want to use that word) with others; by your logic, he's about
>due for something in the way of rights.

There is no "shared communication" in the case of Immanuel Kant. In the
first place, any "communication" is one-way: Kant can "communicate" to us,
but we can't "communicate" back. Therefore, it's not "shared" communication.
In the second place, Kant is not "communicating", only his works are. Do you 
really want to grant personhood to a bunch of dusty old Philosophy textbooks
(I've heard, from some of my profs who read him in the original German, that 
Kant was a pretty bad writer, anyhow, but not nearly as bad as Hegel)???

>	And there you go with that "being in someone else's body"
>again.  Apparently it still doesn't faze you that the woman put the
>child there in the first place.  

She should have a right to "put it in" OR "take it out", Steven. And, as long 
as the z/e/f doesn't have a chance of biological independence, and doesn't feel
pain, there shouldn't be any silly restrictions on HOW she "takes it out" 
either. Why make things more difficult and/or risky and/or costly than they
need to be?

Weren't you the one blubbering about "property rights" a while back? Well, if 
it helps, think of the non-viable z/e/f as the woman's property, to dispose 
of as she sees fit. You wouldn't want to compromise her property rights, now
would you?

>|> >|> Where does it end?  Where the constitution says it ends.
>|> >
>|> >	The constitution does not grant a right to commit abortions.  
>|> 
>|> Yes, it does.  Read the 9th and 10th ammendments again please.
>
>	The ninth and tenth amendments most emphatically DO NOT
>grant any right to abortion.  They merely say, if I remember my
>Constitution correctly, that people may have other rights not
>ennumerated therein.  They do not say what those rights might be. 

Steven, learn some things about Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court ruled, 
in a long line of precedents prior to RvW, that States are not allowed to 
restrict ANY fundamental rights, unless the State can demonstrate a compelling
reason for doing so. Furthermore, the Court has ruled, in a long line of pre-
RvW precedents, that the Right to Privacy, specifically wrt reproductive/
family matters, IS one of those "fundamental" rights. Therefore, it followed
that unless the State could demonstrate a compelling interest in violating
reproductive Right to Privacy, it was not Constitutionally allowable. No state
has ever demonstrated a "compelling interest" in violating abortion rights,
either in RvW or subsequent cases. Therefore, the current legality of abortion
DOES rest upon the 9th and 14th Amendments (along with the "penumbras" of
other Amendments).

>|> >	And it is your opinion (correct?) that any one person who happens to
>|> >inhabit the body of any other person may be killed by the former person, and you
>|> >maintain this to be true absolutely, regardless of any modifying circumstances or
>|> >other special exceptions.  Is this your opinion?
>|> 
>|> Nope.
>
>	Under what circumstances may a person who inhabits the body
>of another not be killed by the person whose body he inhabits?

A) When the inhabitation is of a very transient nature, and not immediately
   life-threatening or seriously medically risky to the inhabitee 

	and/or 

B) Some other method exists for quickly terminating the inhabitation which 
   permits the continued existence of both the inhabitor and the inhabitee.

The common theme is that PROLONGED inhabitation, or the death or medical
endangerment of the inhabitee, is not socially acceptable.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush