Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Human beings and their Rights
Message-ID: <771@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 15:36:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.771
Posted: Thu Aug  8 15:36:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 02:30:24 EDT
References: <392@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1259@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: CONTEL CADO Systems, Torrance, CA
Lines: 45

> QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION:
> 
> Is it legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a perfectly good arm
> or leg?  (My answer:  No, removing a healthy limb is mayhem, a crime not
> against the amputee but against the Queen's peace (or the state, in the USA),
> and the amputee's consent to, or even procurement of, deliberate mayhem
> will be no defense for the surgeon in a criminal trial for mayhem.)
> 
> Should it be legal for a man to hire a surgeon to amputate a healthy limb?

Related question:

Does it matter if it is legal or not for a man to have a healthy limb 
aputated? (in other words, will it stop him?).

> The "owner of the body"'s right to do WHAT, as against WHAT rights of
> "other people or things"?  The owner's right to do whatever he wants
> without hurting others is THE preconception of liberalism.  Taken as
> an absolute, it leads to conclusions unacceptable to me and, I submit,
> probably unacceptable to most participants in this newsgroup, whether
> pro-life or pro-choice:  How many advocate abortion on demand (including
> the "right" to ensure that the fetus does not survive) all the way
> through the ninth month of pregnancy?  How many advocate legalizing
> heroin for recreational use?  How many advocate legalizing sex between
> a consenting adult and a consenting ten-year-old?  

I don't have any particular problem with any of these, except perhaps
the issue of whether or not a ten-year-old *can* actually be consenting.

> If a principle, taken as an absolute, sometimes leads to conclusions
> unacceptable to society, then society is within its rights not to take
> that principle as an absolute.  Instead, society must carefully review
> each argument based on the principle, to see whether such arguments
> collide with other, possibly equally valid, principles.  And if there
> is a collision, society must decide which principle to uphold.
> 
> 					-- Matt Rosenblatt

I would be inclined to replace the term 'society' with 'individuals' in
this paragraph.  The term 'society' as used here seems a little too
socialist for my taste.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd