From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 15:33:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.183736.25835@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr03.225028.6608@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>> You are the father of a child.  This child has a rare blood
>>>> disorder.  The only way this child will survive is if you are
>>>> hooked up to a dialysis machine for 24 hours a day for nine
>>>> months (1).  At the end of the time your child will be cured,
>>>> and you can then go on your merry way.
>
>>> This hypothetical scenario is not an exact parallel to pregnancy. 
>>> If the father were to take no action, then the child would surely die.
>>> There is no equivalent "inaction" during pregnancy that would result in 
>>> the death of the fetus, therefore the above analogy fails. 
>
>> I suppose that the claims a fetus makes upon the body of a woman are
>> 'inactive' in your view?  
>
>I don't see how your question relates to my argument. Do you
>agree that the original hypothetical scenario is not analogous to 
>pregnancy? 

I don't think the original hypothetical scenario is perfectly analogous to
pregnancy.

>The fetus takes a "default" action by growing inside the body of a woman. 
>It cannot make a claim upon the body of a woman -- it simply exists.
>However its inability make a claim does not imply that the fetus has 
>no rights.

Scuse, please, but the default for an adult fertile woman is NO pregnancy.
Now, either that default is changed (by who? by what? and upon what basis?
and what rights streams devolve from this change?) or not.

People take action to rectify their personal situations daily.  Autonomously.
Adequately.  With or without considered intent.  *action* per se means squat.

>Minor situation??!! I hope that was a sarcastic comment.

Yes it was.

>>> If the child did not need to be physically connected to the father
>>> (thus removing the possibility of the child's death due to the
>>> father's inaction), then removing dialysis treatment from the child 
>>> would constitute murder, in my opinion.
>
>> But if the child *did* need to be physically connected?  And WAS 
>> physically connected?  Is it your opinion that the father could not
>> take the action to DISconnect?
>
>You missed the point. If the child did need to be physically connected
>to the father to live, and assuming that the father was not connected 
>to the child, then the child would die if the father decided to 
>take no action. Only through active steps could the father save
>the child's life. The father cannot murder the child by taking 
>no action. 

I "missed" the point insofar as you are defining rights to be allowable
on the basis of inactivity, sure.  I'm PRESSING the point that this is a 
pretty silly definition.  If one cannot act upon one's rights, they are
moot, don't you think?  I suspect that action vs. inaction wouldn't work
in relationship to MOST rights enforcement, but that's just my personal
suspicion.

>During pregnancy, the situation is the *exact opposite*. If the mother
>takes no action, then the child will be born and it will live.

Bull.  If the mother takes no action, the fetus will not be expelled,
and will probably reabsorb or will cause internal infection to the tune
of both of their lives.  Doesn't happen very often because the mother
DOES take action, i.e., birthin' the baby.  Which is the culmination 
of a whole series of actions.  What does mere 'activity' have to do with
anything?

>If the mother takes active steps to terminate the pregnancy, then
>the fetus will die. Therefore the hypothetical scenario given above 
>is not analogous to pregnancy because the child would die if the
>father took NO action, but the fetus would die if the mother DID 
>take action. Killing can only be accomplished through active means. 
>Abortion is an active means.

Insofar as the analogy can cover a situation where a man is ALREADY
hooked up to his minor child, the analogy works.   Let's say he was
connected up by....hm....an "act of god".
Or, "by accident".  Answer the questions.


Adrienne Regard