From: c3q@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Abortion: Conflict of Rights
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:55:00 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cornell University



A rhetorical problem in the discussion of abortion (both in general, and in
this group) is that neither side addresses the fundamental point of the other. 
Pro-Lifers never address the issue of a woman having control over her body, and
Pro-Choicers never address the issue of the life of the unborn child.

Before any meaningful dialogue can take place, these issues must be addressed. 
Although not in accordance with the "official" LP line, I think the following
argument lies within the realm of Libertarianism:

Every person has the right of ownership over their body.  This implies the
derived rights of smoking, ritual scarification, and driving without a
seatbelt.  It includes the right not to be killed.

Now, we can see that a woman has the right to take medication (contraceptives,
or otherwise), and a child has the right to live.  Here we reach the muddled
interface of the two rights.  Heinlein said that (paraphrase) "your right to
swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Where des the woman's fist end and the baby's nose begin?

It is the height of folly to unilaterraly and absolutely declare that either
argument is correct, and the other without merit.

"Solutions" such as declaring that only a rational being is a human leave
leaway to kill infants, the comatose, and the sleeping (a farfetched
connection, I'll grant...but how is a sleeping man who'll wake up in 8 hours
different than a baby who'll grow up in a few yr.s, or a fetus that will be
born in a few months?)

What is needed is a more precise definition of life that is in accord with the 
current common understanding.  I would argue that brain activity is the best
available test.  Others may argue differently.

If this is conceeded, the fetus before brain activity (10+- weeks, from what
I've heard) may be legally considered a non-human, and falls under a woman's
discretion.  After this point, it would be considered a human.  In this period,
we're back to the conflict of woman's right to self-determination vs. child's
right to life.

An analogy:  I own an airplane.  X is a passenger in the plane.  I decided I
don't like his company.  I may throw him off the plane AFTER I LAND.  I did,
after all, invite him (contractual obbligation/ murder).  2) X is a stowaway. 
I may throw him off the plane.  Arguments can be made wether I must land first.
3) X was drugged and put in my plane.  I notice his presence.  I do not desire
it...

Of these 3 analogies, I believe that 3 best parallels pregnancy.  X did not ask
to be conceived/ put on the plan.  I did not ask to have his company forced
upon me/ be pregnant.  In such a case, neither party is guilty of a crime, and
both have their rights: X to his life, me to my property.  Both can not be
perfectly reconciled. 

It is my thesis that in such a case, the lesser injustice must be done, rather
than the greater.  I would say that this lesser injustice is to deny the plane
owner/woman her petition to be free of X for the period of 6-7 months (9 months
- 10 weeks).  As soon as the plane lands she may deliver X to an orphanage.  An
imperfect solution, but, I believe better than killing X.

I'd be interested in responses.  Please address reactions to individual
assumptions or connections on my part.  

-Travis 
 
Newsgroups: alt.individualism