From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: N-C abortion 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:31:47 GMT

In article <724273916snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.012822.22393@cbnews.cb.att.com>
>           jap@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
>
>>If the mother has the right to abort because giving birth would cost her
>>her life, then she has the same right if the costs are lesser.
>
>How much less?  As far as I'm concerned, a life is weighed against a
>life.  How much (money, for instance) is a life worth?  If you say that
>a woman has the right to abort if to do otherwise would cost her 'x'
>amount of money, you have put a price on life.  In which case, a person
>would be quite legitimately permitted to take the life of someone by
>whom he was owed money.

How much less?  Effectively, any amount.  The question does not relate to the
value of a life.  You have not put a price on life, you have eliminated the
price of using your body as you see fit ("sorry, ma'am; it doesn't cost you
enough to give birth, so we'll force you to pay that price.").

If somone is giving something to someone else, and that person is not *owed*
what is being given, that person may cease giving at any point.  A mother gives
shelter and sustenance to her unborn child, but does not *owe* it to the child.
Thus, she may freely cease giving it at any point.
>
>>Being born
>>is a *privilege* bestowed upon a child by its parents, not a right.
>
>Being brought into existence is a privilege bestowed by the parents.
>They were under no compulsion to perform the act which created the
>child.  Once having created life, that life has rights.

Does a living person have the right to welfare?  No.  The parents cannot
take that life "frivolously"; however gestating the child is certainly
not frivolous (ask any pregnant woman).

>>Choosing to act in a manner which *may* result in some action does not
>>imply an intent for that action to occur.  Thus, no contract is implied.
>>Further, with no contract, beginning a process which will benefit somone
>>else (as live birth arguably would be) can reasonably be terminated at
>>any time.
>
>Really?  So if I drive at 60 mph in a residential district, knowing that
>I *may* hit a child (but am not *intending* to hit any child), I do not
>bear responsibility for injuries to a child I hit?  An interesting
>theory...

Your example does not follow.  You missed the phase "beginning a process
which will benefit someone else", which clearly is absent in your example.
In your example, a tort occurred, and the driver is obligated to undo the
damage.  There is no "damage" done in conceiving, therefore no tort.

>>The parents have in no way declared themselves irresponsible citizens,
>>any more than not choosing to give to a particular charity (as it is
>>a privilege, not a right, for a charity to receive donations).  It may
>>not be "nice" to not give in some circumstance, but by no means is it
>>irresponsible citizenship nor indicative of indifference toward people's
>>rights.
>
>Any more than a person who kills while driving in an inebriated
>condition, evidently.  I suppose that you *could* claim 'diminished
>responsibility', except that I thought Libertarianism had thrown that
>out...

I argue taking action to cease giving sustenance, you argue doing a deliberate
damage.  Before your position can be evaluated, you need to show how my analogy
is inaccurate.

I put it to you, Chris, how can you argue against the right to abort, and for
the right to not be forced to pay for welfare?

>>This is off the subject, but would you then argue that a defense of the
>>form "the plaintiff had indicated consent" inadmissible?  If that is the
>>case, how would one mount a defense when sexual activity had occurred?
>
>No.  If the defence is "the plaintiff indicated consent", then it
>becomes a matter of one person's word against another.  The case may
>then depend on medical evidence (most rape has some violence associated
>with it - damaged clothing, bruising, etc.).  If the medical evidence
>was inconclusive then "not proven" could be returned.
>
>As a parallel example, if two men have a fight (with no witnesses).  If
>one charges the other with assault, who is deemed to be correct?

So you would allow evidence of consent.  I think we (finally) agree on
something 8-)

                                         James Parker
                                         jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian