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