Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner From: ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: The Nature of Rights - (nf) Message-ID: <38@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Jul-83 07:26:17 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbcad.38 Posted: Fri Jul 22 07:26:17 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 23-Jul-83 02:02:55 EDT Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP Organization: UC Berkeley, CAD Group Lines: 92 #R:umcp-cs:-50100:ucbesvax:11400004:000:4381 ucbesvax!turner Jul 14 02:08:00 1983 OK, liz, let's get down to it. If the moral question of abortion is to be legislated -- note that it is not, at the moment -- what is the proper legal status of someone who then commits an act of abortion? I will accept for the sake of argument that a fetus -- no, technically that is incorrect -- rather, the product of conception (POC), is human, and therefore has a human right to life which should be protected by any just government. (I will admit to simply not knowing whether the POC is human. To date it from conception seems stretched; that event is far from instantaneous. But then, neither is the event of birth, which is what many pro-choice advocates mark as the beginning.) Now, if a POC is taken from its uterine environment and left to die (as it inevitably would, except late in term), is this: 1. manslaughter, 2. negligent homicide, 3. or premeditated murder? If, on the other hand, it is killed (by a skilled accomplice who would no longer be a doctor, but an "abortionist"), before or after being taken from the uterine environment, is this a more serious crime? Since the POC is human, and has a human right to life, does that mean that it necessarily has a right to a uterine environment for as long as that environment is needed for its survival? That is to say, does this POC not only own its own body, but also its mother's body for the duration of pregnancy? In which case, how does it come to lose it's property later, after it is born? If not, why is the mother required to provide this environment, if it in fact belongs to her? What you seem to be missing, perhaps, is that human rights can, in some situations, truly conflict, and that judgement must rest with those who are vitally effected. And, to be honest, I don't think that a judge (man or woman) in a court of law is vitally effected by a woman's choice to end the life of a POC inside her own body. The women bearing the POC, and the POC itself, are the vital participants. The POC's participation is involuntary: it did not ask to be brought into existence, and will not even address the question of whether it should exist or not until it is many years out of the womb. Thus, there is effectively one participant, one judge, over the bodies of (at most) two human beings. There is no sense in which the state is mounting a defense either of itself or of other decision-making humans when it prosecutes abortionists and women who have chosen to abort (unless it is the unlikely circumstance of avoiding underpopulating itself out of existence.) Obviously, I don't expect you to address all of these issues, but I would like to know just what sort of criminal element you think I might be dealing with when I associated with women who might have had abortions. What should the law be, and what should be the penalties compared to those meted out for the degrees of murder listed above? In the prevailing system of indeterminate sentencing, should it be 1 to 5? 5 to 10? 10 to life? Life imprisonment? The death penalty? In any case, it should certainly not be a simple fine. This could lead to a truly barbarous situation in which *rich* women could afford abortions far more easily than poor ones, and thus have a different moral standard (by default) within their own social strata. Since, for the law to be fair, it must protect equally, wealth should be no object to the protection of a POC's right to life. After all, what good is a law if it is not a means of social control? The POC's of wealthy women must be as well protected as the POC's of poor women. Which brings me to the subject of a neighborhood just about five miles to the south of here, where the infant mortality rate is comparable to that of many third world countries. But perhaps that is a good place to stop and think about your moral priorities, and the role of the state in protecting rights. If the state has a duty to protect the lives of POC's, does this mean that it should provide free health services to any woman who is pregnant? Or again, do we have a system of punishments for women who are criminally negligent in being poor when they conceive? Certainly, it is one of the tenets of the prevailing notion of human rights in the U.S. that an able-bodied person who is poor is poor by choice. Just take a look at net.politics. Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner