From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:52:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Dec14.235032.33229@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: Sorry, but whether we have the techonology to remove it intact is
>: irrelevant once you start wanting to treat it as a person violating
>: property rights rather than as an undesired growth in the mother's
>: body.

>I never said it should be treated as a "person" (whatever that means), I'm
>merely saying that her right to control the contents of her womb take 
>precedence over it's right to gestate there.  If it could be removed intact
>and transplanted elsewhere, I suspect we would do that rather than dismembering
>it.

That bit I agree with, but I think trying to base it on property
rights and modeling it on 'someone taking up residence' is a lose.

>: It's rather like saying, "Gee, I have this tenant I want to
>: evict and I'm only 5'4", so the only way I can get them out of there
>: is to shoot them."  It still isn't legal.

>The reason that sounds silly is because that's NOT the only way to get a
>tenant out of there.  But trying to arbitrarily "justify" that your tenant
>is not a human being would be equally silly.

True, but the eviction model is yours, not mine.  I don't agree that
there's a connection there in the first place.

>: >No, but then I don't propose doing that when you walk into my house either.
>: 
>: Well then, I suggest you either be prepared to commit perjury or to
>: serve time for murder, because once you invite me in I don't think you
>: can legally use deadly force to remove me unless I'm threatening you.
>: Of course, neither can I legally resist leaving, but you have to call
>: a cop to remove me.

>Wait a minute.  First you said I need a court order.  

When you wanted to treat it like an unwanted tenant.  In the case of a
foetus, this is probably where you'd wind up (given your choice of
'model'). 

>Now you say I just need
>a cop.  

Because now you are talking about removing an uninvited guest from
YOUR HOME.  There is some difference there, John.

>I don't need either.  I can call 10 of my buddies over and we can 
>pick you up and carry you out.  The point is, I can remove you from my house
>without killing you.  

And go to jail for assault after.  If I was initially invited in and
do no violence and offer no threat, I don't believe that you are
permitted to use force against me.  It's not criminal trespass if I
was initially invited.  

Your model breaks down even further in the case of a foetus, by the
way, since at least half of that foetus was already 'in residence', so
to speak, since half the germ plasm comes from the mother.  So model
your proprety rights more along the lines of your inviting me to come
in, park in your garage, take a shower with your daughter, and SHE
invites me to stay.

>You can't remove a  <24 week (or so) fetus without it
>dying as a result.

That's right.  Which means that in the course of your 'eviction' you
are taking actions that you know, or should know, constitute deadly
force.  You cannot legally do that.  This is why I think your
'eviction' model is such a lose.

>: Oh, no.  She invited it in; she just didn't want it to stay.  If she
>: hadn't 'invited' it, it wouldn't be there (unless she was raped).

>This would only be true if she intended to get pregnant, and then changed her
>mind after she became pregnant.  I doubt this is a common occurrence.  Your
>statement is like saying that if I leave my window open, I have invited you
>into my house.

No, because if you follow the model you've proposed, for me to enter
against your will it would have to be rape.  Otherwise, I was invited
for a visit but YOU didn't invite me to stay (your daughter did).

>: But it puts you into a position where you can't legally perform an
>: abortion without first calling the police, getting court orders, etc. 

>Not really.  It's a question of absolute domain over one's body and what it's
>used for.  Why should I be required to provide biological life support to 
>another organism, whether they fit somebody's arbitrary criteria for "human" 
>or not?  If you crawl in my open window, I don't have to feed you until you
>feel like leaving.  And you're definitely a human being (I think).

The first part of your parapgraph makes sense.  However, once you
include this 'eviction' model that you want to use for an analogy, it
no longer makes sense.  You aren't required to feed me, but you sure
aren't allowed to chop me up into bits so you can feed me out the
doggie door, either.

>: Sorry, but that's not the case.  She invited the sperm in; she just
>: didn't like what they did once they got there.

>She DIDN'T invite the fertilized egg to implant into her uterus.  It's two 
>completely separate things.

The egg was already a 'legal resident' under your model.  It's as if
someone else in your household invited me to stay.  Under the law, you
do not have the right to use deadly force (or any force) to remove me.
That's why you need the cops and the courts under your model.

And that is why I think your model is a lose in this situation.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.