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