From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:51:13 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan3.134142.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
by cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu:
> In article <1992Dec31.182305.9901@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>> From article <1992Dec31.120002.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
>> by cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu:
>>> In article <1992Dec31.042143.2459@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>> 
>>>> 	Now please explain why it's morally acceptable for actual,
>>>>    undoubted human persons to die in the interest of reducing
>>>>              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>    the crime rate, but morally unacceptable for zygotes or fetii
>>>>                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>    to die in the interest of reducing the rates of mental and
>>>>    physical distress and/or illness among women.

>>>      "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
>>> appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.  Second, your use
>>> of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
>>> considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).

>> I hope you're prepared to back this "definition" up, preferably with a
>> quotation from a reputable dictionary.

>      Is Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1991) reputable
> enough?  The primary definition (i.e. definition 1 a) of "child" is
> "an unborn or recently born person."

So it is.  Glad I asked.

>> [deletia]

>>>  The pro-life/pro-capital punishment position is also
>>> logically consistent.  It assumes that there is a right-to-life,
>>> but, along with this right, there is a responsibility not to murder
>>> (i.e. to unlawfully cease another's right-to-life).  If one acts
>>> irresponsibly, then he is no longer necessarily entitled to his right.

>> I'm no legal expert, so I must query: Is that really the philosophy behind
>> capital punishment?  It seems to be your philosophy, but is it a prevalent
>> legal doctrine?

>     I presented this in response to the claim that the Roman Catholic
> position is the only logically-consistent position.  I am not an ardent
> supporter of capital punishment -- primarily because of the possibility
> of execution of an innocent person.  However, in theory, I believe that
> a murderer should be executed.

>>  I ask because I note that the Declaration of Independence
>> asserts the existence of "inalienable rights" and, according to the
>> (oh no!) dictionary, "inalienable" means "that may not be taken away
>> or transferred".

>      Incarceration takes away one's "inalienable" right to liberty.  Are
> you suggesting that, in the name of inalienable rights, we should empty 
> all of the penitentiaries?  

I'm suggesting that I don't understand how the existence of inalienable
rights affects incarceration and execution.  I propose the following
remedies:
	1. The writers of the DofI did not mean "that may not be taken
	   away or transferred" when they used the word inalienable.
	2. Though the inalienable rights may be neither taken away
	   nor transferred, they may be surrendered under the terms
	   of some sort of social contract.
	3. Though the inalienable rights of an individual may be neither
	   taken away nor transferred, they are sometimes subject to
	   (i.e., superseded by) the rights of others as well as to
	   the interests of the state (e.g., the "rights" of society).

Perhaps there are folks out there who would like to enlighten me (us)
on this subject.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion