From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:48:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.053904.11401@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.080258.14443@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov14.053432.20223@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>>Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:

>>>"Killing a possible person" on purpose isn't malpractice -- it's
>>>manslaughter.

>>Suzanne, are you talking about "pulling the plug" on humans who may or
>>may not be brain-dead?  

>No.

>>There is *no* other example besides abortion
>>that I consider killing a *possible* person.

>Well, if by 'killing a possible person' you mean taking actions designed
>to kill any person who might be there,

Not even faintly analogous.  In abortion you *know* you're killing
something, you don't know whether or not it's a person.

>                                       I can think of two offhand: 
>shooting at a man-shaped pile of rags in a dark alley, and dropping large
>rocks off an overpass onto the busy highway below.  Manslaughter.

>Or do you mean to define a new legal category, inferior to personhood,
>called 'possible personhood'?

No.  It's the way I think of third-trimester fetuses, but designing
the law that way is probably impossible and would certainly create a
bloody mess.  I would like to define third-trimester fetuses as
entities protected by law.

>Have you thought about the implications of doing that?

Somewhat.  Have you thought about the implications of allowing a fetus
the day before birth to be killed at will and punishing killing a
newborn as full murder?

>>>If you mean to use that reasoning about third-tri abortion,
>>>you'd damn well better treat it seriously according to our legal
>>>tradition.

>>I'm willing to treat third-trimester abortions [...]
>>quite seriously, or haven't you seen any of the posts in which
>>I advocate short jail sentences for women procuring illegal
>>third-trimester restrictions?

>I have.  Haven't you seen the legal system?  Laws carrying criminal
>penalties are enforced by pro-active criminal courts, not by passive
>judicial review.  What's your intention in departing from that process?

1) I'm departing from the criminal justice system in some cases, not in all.

2) To recognize third-trimester abortion as a unique case in that identical
   acts may be justified in one case and not in others.

3) What's your beef with making the default condition 'not guilty' and only
   investigating when there's a reason to believe wrongdoing?  Do you think
   police should investigate all parents for child abuse?

>>It's ye olde conflicting rights again: I think two entities possess
>>conflicting rights and need to balance these rights.  Thatisn't easy.

>Apparently not.  You're welcome to balance rights all you like in private;
>but no power in our society (outside military contexts) has the legal
>authority to 'balance' rights to survival among two living persons.

What do you think we're doing when we authorize people to use lethal force
to protect themselves?

>                                                                    Not
>the courts, and certainly not doctors.  We may acquit self-defense
>afterwards, but we can't authorize manslaughter in advance.  Which is a
>very, very good thing when you think about it.

But we *do* authorize killing people in advance.  If someone tries to
rape me, I'm legally entitled to use lethal force to prevent him.  An
investigation after the fact, if undertaken, would only be to
determine whether the facts were as I'd said and if my authorization
to kill had kicked in.

>>I worked reasonably hard on the proposal I posted earlier in this
>>thread, 

>An A for Effort.  But your lovely details are resting on an infectiously
>rotten premise, and all your work can't justify it.

Truth by assertion, Suzanne-Lucia.

In any case, my *belief* is that third-trimester fetuses are possible
people, but the only *premise* my proposal needs is that they're worth
protection.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion