From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:19:49 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>dsh@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> You missed the point. If the child did need to be physically connected
>> to the father to live, and assuming that the father was not connected 
>> to the child, then the child would die if the father decided to 
>> take no action. Only through active steps could the father save
>> the child's life. The father cannot murder the child by taking 
>> no action. 

> I "missed" the point insofar as you are defining rights to be allowable
> on the basis of inactivity, sure.  

I am not defining rights on the basis of inactivity -- you can  
actively exercise your rights so long as you do not interfere 
with the rights of others. 

In many situations, you have the right to do nothing. Under most  
circumstances, a person has the right to refuse to save the life 
of another human. But that does not imply that they have the 
right to kill another human. 

> I'm PRESSING the point that this is a 
> pretty silly definition.  If one cannot act upon one's rights, they are
> moot, don't you think?  

Yes, however I am not saying that a person cannot act on their rights. 
I am saying that they cannot act if they were to violate the rights of 
others.

>> During pregnancy, the situation is the *exact opposite*. If the mother
>> takes no action, then the child will be born and it will live.

> Bull.  If the mother takes no action, the fetus will not be expelled,
> and will probably reabsorb or will cause internal infection to the tune
> of both of their lives.  

No, if the mother takes no action against the fetus, then eventually 
it will be born.

> Doesn't happen very often because the mother
> DOES take action, i.e., birthin' the baby.  

Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother. 

> Which is the culmination 
> of a whole series of actions.  

The only relevant action I can think of is sexual intercourse.
(no pun intended)

> What does mere 'activity' have to do with anything? 

Murder is a willful action taken against a person. Murder cannot 
be accomplished through a person's inaction. A father cannot
murder his child by refusing to support the child. Abortion is 
a willful action taken against the fetus. Therefore, it fits
the spirit of murder, if not the legal definition.  

>> If the mother takes active steps to terminate the pregnancy, then
>> the fetus will die. Therefore the hypothetical scenario given above 
>> is not analogous to pregnancy because the child would die if the
>> father took NO action, but the fetus would die if the mother DID 
>> take action. Killing can only be accomplished through active means. 
>> Abortion is an active means.

> Insofar as the analogy can cover a situation where a man is ALREADY
> hooked up to his minor child, the analogy works.   

Not quite. If the father disconnects from the child, his disconnection 
does not cause the death of the child, the child's disease causes death. 
The child's death is a consequence of the father's action to disconnect, 
but the father's action is not a cause of death.  

The death of the fetus during an abortion is caused by the person
who kills the fetus.

> Let's say he was
> connected up by....hm....an "act of god".

As I recall, the original question was something like "would you
connect in this situation." If "god" forced me to physically connect 
to my child, then I think I would remain connected. BTW, I consider myself 
to be an agnostic, if that matters. 

> Or, "by accident".  Answer the questions.

What type of accident? Give me a realistic scenario.