Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.flame
Subject: Re: The Koenig Maneuver
Message-ID: <3645@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 09:31:55 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3645
Posted: Thu Apr 25 09:31:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 07:10:40 EST
References: <815@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 108
Xref: watmath net.abortion:1485 net.flame:9510

> Example:

>>> 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from
>>> home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling
>>> less than 40 mph.  

> Here, subject A is the risk of injury from motor vehicles (in
> the context of the debate on whether mandatory seat belt laws
> should be enacted).

>> Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than
>> 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed
>> in an automobile accident?  What if I lie to my car and tell
>> it it's far from home when it really isn't?  (I know it's not
>> nice to lie to cars -- this is just a thought experiment)

> Subject B is a (one assumes fictional) car with volition and
> sensibilities (which might be offended if its owner told it a
> lie).  The common thread (and I do mean a thin thread) is that
> cars, or motor vehicles, do appear in both.  There is a variation
> on the wild leap, in that the entire subject B is absurd, rather
> than the statement about the subject.

Gary, this comment of yours merely shows that you are incapable
of recognizing a joke when you see one.

> Another example:

>>> If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece
>>> of real estate.  If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with
>>> other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner.

> In this case, subject A is the right of the government to restrict the
> use of the roads, on the grounds that the government paid for them
> (again, in the context of the mandatory seat belt debate).

>> In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions
>> it pleases on people who use public roads.

> Note that the restatement is slightly ambigous, in that it is not clear
> whether restrictions can be imposed at all times, or only on the use
> of the public road.  This ambiguity facilatates the wild leap, below.

>> Hmmm...does that mean that the government has the right to say that
>> if you use a public road, you are deemed to have given them permission,
>> say, to search your home for evidence of any illegal activity?

> Subject B, apparently, is the constitutional right to be free from
> unreasonable search and seizure.  The only connection is the word
> "right," which was introduced in the above restatement.

Wrong. Subject B is the right of the government to restrict the use
of the roads.  If the government has the right to restrict the use of the
roads, then it has the right to insist that people who use them
do so at the cost of giving up rights they would otherwise have had.
I was pointing out that it is unreasonable for the government to be
allowed to impose arbitrary requirements on people who use the roads,
by giving an example of how this power might be misused.  Once you
agree that the government should not have unlimited control over
people who use the roads, that particular argument for seat belt
laws becomes far less convincing.

> Third and last example (from net.abortion -- apologies to net.flame
> readers):

>> Paul Dubuc says:

>>> Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes
>>> sexual behaviour.  You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond
>>> the realm of individual choice.  I believe that people generally *choose*
>>> of have sex.  If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that
>>> goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible.

> Here, subject A is the thesis that having a choice implies accepting
> a responsibility, this time in the context of the abortion debate.

>> Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I
>> might be involved in an automobile accident.  Are you seriously
>> suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading
>> my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment?

> Subject B is medical treatment of an injury.  Here, the tenuous
> connection is the veiled equating of abortion, a medical procedure
> (according to some) which terminates a life, with the treatment of
> injury, for the purpose of saving a life (depending, of course,
> on the severity of the injury).

Subject B is whether it is appropriate to try, after the fact, to
minimize the bad effects of losing a gamble.  So is subject A.
A person who drives a car runs the risk of an accident, and does
so by choice.  If that choice to take that risk results in an injury,
almost everyone would agree that the driver has the right to seek
medical treatment to minimize the effects of the injury.

A woman who engages in sex runs the risk of becoming pregnant.
I was pointing out here that responsibility really isn't an
issue, any more than it is an issue about treatments for auto
accidents.  Granted, there are some people who believe that
abortion is morally impermissible, because the fetus is a human
being who has the right to live.  But that argument has nothing
to do with the one I was trying to rebut here.

Gary, there's only one thing I can't figure out about your article:
did you post it because you really didn't understand my arguments,
or did you actually understand them but posted it anyway to try
to get others to misunderstand them?

			--Andrew Koenig