Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!rat
From: rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.Caltech.Edu (Ray Trent)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Population control & Freedom
Message-ID: <980@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Sun, 14-Sep-86 17:59:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: cit-vax.980
Posted: Sun Sep 14 17:59:56 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Sep-86 05:29:27 EDT
Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu
Reply-To: rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Distribution: na
Organization: Icon Busters Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <11700397@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>Procreation rights follow simply from one's right to  dispose  of
>one's  own body. That right is so basic that it must be preserved
>unless you want all other rights to go.  Even  the  less  extreme
>forms  of  slavery  respect it. It includes the right to conceive
>and the right not to abort. Together, they form the right to pro-
>create.

Tsk tsk.  This, after Jan gives us a lecture on the need to define
rights clearly.  Surely Jan does not believe in a right to do
whatever one wants to one's body regardless of the impact on others.
Surely he will not say that I have a right, for example, to take a
drug which induces homicidal paranoia while walking a busy city
street.

Richard Carnes asserts that procreation has negative effects on 
others.  Jan replies that not all negative effects count as possible
grounds for restricting an activity.  Well -- speaking of defining
rights clearly -- *which* ones don't count, and why not?  (Especially
why not -- you'll have a hard time convincing me on that score.)  Back
to square one.

what you need,
		Paul Torek, not necessarily reflecting the views of:
		rat@tybalt.caltech.edu