From: mcbryde@navier.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: UH Dept of Math
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:01:06 GMT

In article <Bv74uq.8ws@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>THE FOLLOWING IS PRESENTED FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT.
>(Do not delete this disclaimer.)
>
>Stipulate:  A fetus is a person.

Okay. We can stipulate this. This means that having an abortion is killing 
a person.

>Assumption 1:  The basic rights of a person are inalienable,
>insofar as they do not infringe upon the basic rights of others.
>
>Assumption 2:  Any person may voluntarily restrict his/her
>basic rights (ie. they are voluntarily "alienable").
>
>Assumption 3:  All persons have the right to life.
>
>Assumption 4:  All persons have the right to "bodily privacy."

These are fine.

>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.

This works.

>Law B:  Involuntary sex does not implies any acceptance of a 
>restriction of rights.

This is gonna cause problems.

>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.

These are fine.

>Law E:  A woman's basic right to bodily privacy exceeds the right to life
>(support) of a fetus.

Come on. The life of a (stipulated) person is less important than someones
bodily privacy? I'm afraid that I find the concept of killing a person to
allow someone privacy to be a bit extreme.

>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.

Okay.

>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?
>
>
>Criteria for making decision:
>-----------------------------
>
>a. Woman's life-threatened?                [woman-life always dominates]
>     Yes --> abortion legal.

Actually this one would be debatable. Why is the mother's life more
important than the fetus's? But we'll let this one slide since one has
to give one of them priority. This is a defensible position, but just
barely, since it is a certainty that the fetus will die.

>     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.

Once you stipulate that the fetus is a person I see a couple of problems.
Since the fetus *will* die in an abortion, the health of the mother being
merely threatened hardly seems enough to justify killing the fetus. For a
very serious threat you have a defensible position. And the rape/incest
position is very suspect. I don't consider codifying a law that allows one
to kill person who is innocent of wrong-doing (the fetus) because one
feels that one's bodily privacy is being invaded particularly defensible.
It's kinda like giving the death penalty to an innocent bystander of an
assault. 

>WHETHER THESE *SHOULD* BE LAW IS A SEPARATE QUESTION.
>(And I won't argue it.)

Yes, I did indeed read what you had to say before I posted. And I still find
that allowing the killing an innocent person (by your stipulation) because
someone was raped to be ridiculous. (Hint: I have *major* problems with
your stipulation.) And I'm not, now or ever, trying to categorize you
based on your stipulation.

jack
--
jack      mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu    * All I ask of Thee, Lord
* Christ died for our sins.  Dare we    * Is to be a drinker and fornicator
* make his martyrdom meaningless by     * An unbeliever and a sodomite
* not committing them? - Jules Feiffer  * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39932 alt.abortion.inequity:4199 alt.birthright:506