Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!cjk
From: cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: harming, refusing-aid: no diff
Message-ID: <534@ccice2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 11:56:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice2.534
Posted: Mon Dec 31 11:56:11 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Dec-84 22:49:17 EST
References: <2156@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 54

> From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
> > Ah! here we come to the crux of it!!  WHY is someone's right to live greater
> > than someone's right to control their own body?  I for one disagree...
> 
> > If I was to be a judge in a court case involving one person who needs
> > a part of another person's body (maybe a patch of skin for grafts or
> > a kidney, you name it) and the second person refusing to provide that
> > part of their body, I would rule in favour of the person refusing to
> > provide the part, even though I would know very well that this would
> > mean the death of the first person. 
> 
> From: "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery
> > Oppression is wrong.  Refusing aid is not.  The humanity of the
> > fetus is irrelevant to this distinction.
> 
> As is the distinction itself -- irrelevant.
> 
> Interesting court case.  Suppose we construct a slightly different
> case.  A mad scientist is about to take out one of my kidneys against my
> will, and you are the only one who can stop him; but if you stop him, he
> will kill you (somehow -- use your imagination).  But for whatever reason,
> you decide you don't want to even though it would mean my loss of control
> over what happens to my own body.  Here we have a situation where my right
> to control over my own body directly depends on your giving up your life.
> 

Come on Paul, you can't fool us.

We all know it was your brain that the scientist removed, please keep
your facts straight in the future.


> I'll bet that Quigley and others who agree with her will say that her
> right to life should prevail in this case.  But how can anyone justify
> giving different answers in these two cases?  It would seem to be
> inconsistent.  It should not matter what the status quo is or who needs to
> act (vs. being inactive) to save the other.  But I submit that that is the
> only difference that motivates anyone to judge the cases differently.
> 
> Also, Quigley's case was suggested as an analogy to abortion.  But I suggest
> another analogy to abortion.  You and I are siamese twins.  If we are
> separated I will die but you won't (let's say I depend more on certain
> shared blood channels).  You claim that you have a right to control over
> your own body that includes the right to separate.  Now, which is the better
> analogy?  On my opponents' views, I suspect, it makes a big difference
> which analogy is closer; for they would judge that you do not have the right
> to separate.
> 				--The aspiring iconoclast,
> 				Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink
> 	(until 1/11, then back to:	wucs!wucec1!pvt1047	)


-- 
Pie Maker