Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!dr_who From: dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: The Nature of Rights (and enforcement) Message-ID: <1114@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Jul-83 06:36:34 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1114 Posted: Sun Jul 24 06:36:34 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Jul-83 22:36:16 EDT Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 83 I'm sure that Liz can defend herself, but I want to deflect some criticisms of the "pro-life" position. These criticisms are offered by Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner) in an article posted July 22. They don't work. For more arguments that don't work, see my "How NOT to argue abortion," forthcoming in net.politics. We are "accepting for the sake of argument" that a fetus, embryo or zygote has a right to life which should be protected by any just government. The first question: Now, if a [fetus] 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? Well, that all depends on your theory of punishment. The way I would figure it, unless the law or Constitutional amendment declaring fetuses human specified otherwise, is that it is a case of killing in ignorance. The people who do abortions presumably don't believe that they're killing human beings. So, their situation is like that of a hunter who doesn't know that what he is shooting at is not a deer but a person. That makes it "misdemeanor-manslaughter," if you want a legal label. If, on the other hand, it is killed ... Stop right there. This is not "on the other hand," this is the same hand. IF a fetus is a human in the relevant sense, then forcibly removing it from the womb IS killing it. This will be clarified in response to ... 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? IF a fetus has a right not to be killed, then it has a right not to be forcibly removed from its original situation until it can survive such a change. IF a fetus is human in the relevant sense, then we would seem to have a problem saying where (physically) its rights end and the woman's begin. Consider siamese twins, one of whom will die if separated from the other. It seems we can say that such separation violates the one's rights, without saying that it owns the body of the other. Of course, abortion is distinguished by the fact that the woman came first, but is this a distinction with a difference? 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... Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the state should only protect "decision-making" humans and itself? I guess we will have to repeal all laws protecting animals, two-year-olds, ... What should the law be, and what should be the penalties compared to those meted out for the degrees of murder listed above? IF abortion should be prohibited on the basis of the "right-to-life" argument, then it all depends on your theory of punishment. Deterrence theorists will favor stiff sentences. Character-based theories of punishment will favor minimal penalties for women, and somewhat greater penalties for doctors, based on the fact that they act from ignorance (that the life they take is a human life). They might be treated like "conscientious objectors" to draft registration were -- forced to perform community services. Who knows? It doesn't seem to create a terrible problem for the "pro-life" view. 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? It all depends whether the right to life is construed as a positive right, or a negative right not to be killed. If positive, then presumably yes to the first question and no to the red-herring question. Do we feel tempted to answer yes to the second question just because we think two-year-olds have a right to have their lives protected? No, even though the mother's poverty worsens a two-year-old's chances just as much (or little). Let's stop pretending that "pro-lifers" (or "pro-choicers," for that matter) face any unsolvable problems due to their basic position. The only real problems lie in the choice among basic positions. Once that choice is made, it is simply a matter of figuring out the consequences. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park