From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:25:10 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
# ># drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
# ># >Do you hold the proposition 'Abortion is Murder' to be
# ># >an intelligible proposition that can be exported into
# ># >Law in a consistent and meaningful Manner?
# ># 
# ># I don't know about Peter Nyikos, but I believe the proposition can
# ># be "exported into Law" in a consistent and meaningful manner.
# ># Rape/incest/unhealth changes the balance of rights between woman 
# ># and fetus, permitting her to remove the fetus from her body.
# >
# >I'd say it would hinge on, among other things, why and more
# >importantly *how* rape/incest/`unhealth' changes the `balance of
# >rights' between woman and fetus.  What consistent criteria can you use
# >to establish what conditions are necessary for a fetus to be deprived
# >of its right to life under these increasingly hypothetical laws?
# 
# I don't see how these are +increasingly+ hypothetical.  Anyway,
# let us be +very+ concrete.
# 
# THE FOLLOWING IS PRESENTED FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT.
# (Do not delete this disclaimer.)
# 
# Stipulate:  A fetus is a person.

Well, if we're going to be *concrete* then we'd better define our
terms better...

Stipulation:  Exporting the proposition `abortion is murder' into law
means accepting the idea that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are all
within the class of human creatures the law deems to be persons.
Also, it must be shown that the criteria for establishing when unborn
persons may be deprived of their right to life when they were
conceived as a result of rape or incest, or when their mothers' lives
are in grave physical danger resulting from pregnancy.

# Assumption 1:  The basic rights of a person are inalienable,
# insofar as they do not infringe upon the basic rights of others.

I presume you are referring here to the basic rights of `life, liberty
and property,' right?

# Assumption 2:  Any person may voluntarily restrict his/her
# basic rights (ie. they are voluntarily "alienable").

Bad assumption.  A person may choose not to exercise his/her basic
rights, but no one may be deprived of their basic rights because they
have chosen not to exercise them.  (Your contrived argument rests on
this fallacy, by the way.)

# Assumption 3:  All persons have the right to life.

Agreed.

# Assumption 4:  All persons have the right to "bodily privacy."

Too vague.  Are you referring to the 4th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution here?  Or are you referring to the nebulous idea that all
persons have a right to control the physical state of their bodies?  I
will assume you mean the latter.

-----

# Law A:  Voluntary sex shall be taken to be an implicit acceptance 
# of restrictions to the right to bodily privacy, to the degree that 
# the right to life of any resulting fetus shall dominate.
# 
# Law B:  Involuntary sex does not implies any acceptance of a 
# restriction of rights.
# 
# Law C:  A woman who carries a pregnancy to the third trimester shall
# have voluntarily accepted a restriction to her right to bodily privacy 
# as in Law A (in particular, regardless of rape/incest).
# 
# Law D:  A woman's basic right to life exceeds the right to life 
# (support) of a fetus.
# 
# Law E:  A woman's basic right to bodily privacy exceeds the right to life
# (support) of a fetus.
# 
# Law F:  The taking of the life of a fetus shall be illegal, except 
# where the rights of the woman exceed the right-to-life of the fetus.

I presume these are the laws you intend to show are a consistent
reflection of the original stipulation.  Good luck.

-----

# Criterion for establishing necessary conditions:
# ------------------------------------------------
# 
#   Does the fetus' right to life exceed the sum of the woman's rights to 
#   bodily privacy and to life?

This is a question, not a criterion.  The criterion is your implied
answer:  `no, except when it does' -- which is ludicrous.

This is where your argument disintegrates.  The conditions you offer
for deciding when the law may approve the deprivation of the unborn's
right to life are inconsistent with current law.  The deprivation of a
person's right to life can only be legally sanctioned by *due process*
of law.  The law excuses the killing of a person after the fact if
certain criteria are met, e.g. self-defense, but it does not *ever*
issue legal licenses to kill people who have not been tried and found
guilty of capital crime or have not been deemed to be enemies in time
of war.

# Criteria for making decision:
# -----------------------------
# 
# a. Woman's life-threatened?            [woman-life always dominates]
#      Yes --> abortion legal.
#      No  --> consider criteria below.
# 
# b. Rape/Incest?                        [woman-privacy voluntarily reduced?]
#      No  --> abortion illegal.
#      Yes --> consider criterion below.
# 
# c. Third Trimester?                    [woman-privacy voluntarily reduced?]
#      Yes --> abortion illegal.
#      No  --> abortion legal.
# 
# 
# WHETHER THESE *SHOULD* BE LAW IS A SEPARATE QUESTION.
# (And I won't argue it.)

...and I suspect I know the reason why.

Here's basically what you've argued so far...

Assumption:  Abortion is murder, except when...

1.  ...the mother's health is gravely endangered by pregnancy -- it's
killing in self-defense, and the state won't be able to prosecute if
they don't think they can prove otherwise.

2.  ...the unborn person was conceived as a result of rape -- it's
killing in defense of `bodily privacy,' i.e. basic personal liberty
(that was not surrendered by implicit contract) or some such
silliness, and the state won't be able to prosecute if they can prove
otherwise (e.g. by proving that the mother surrendered her rights,
i.e. consented to sex).

3.  ...the unborn person was conceived as a result of incest.  For
this, you offer no explanation whatsoever.

Now, (1) I do not wish to quibble about, (2) I think is absurd,
because it seems ridiculous to think that *any* basic right is
surrenderable, let alone by implicit contract.  And, (3) just makes me
curious.

# Another separate question, which I would discuss:  this scenario 
# is one of the few that are consistent with enforcing child-support 
# obligations on (unmarried) men.

Take it to another thread, if you don't believe this one won't rapidly
devolve into that.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman