Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!houem!marty1 From: marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <656@houem.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 18:21:54 EDT Article-I.D.: houem.656 Posted: Wed Oct 8 18:21:54 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 04:30:18 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> <631@houem.UUCP> <1200@bunker.UUCP> <637@houem.UUCP> <1233@bunker.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 111 This is in reply to <1233@bunker.UUCP>, by garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson), which is 109 lines long. I'd won't include and reply to all 109 lines -- who would read all that? I wrote more myself anyway. Most of this is only loosely related to abortion. It bears on the responsibilities of government in protecting the rights of persons, whatever a person is. I wrote: >>>>The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >>>>protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness >>>>of any other person. and Gary wrote: >>> .... This imposes on the pursuit of happiness of everyone >>>who pays taxes to enable the state to pay the cost of its police powers, and I replied: >>All these are similar to things we willingly pay government to do. and Gary said: >Willingly? I don't think I ever willingly paid a tax -- I don't >recall ever being asked if I want to pay a tax.... to which I reply: the government whose taxing power Gary objects to is the only power (if any) that can prevent abortion, and is in fact the very government that he relies on to protect the rights of persons -- however he defines persons. If you live under government, you pay it taxes. Gary regards taxation as coercion. Actually, taxation is the price we pay for a guarantee of freedom. Then Gary said: >>>In the case of a child unable to fend for himself, there are three >>>alternatives: 1. Find someone willing to take care of the child. >>>2. Find someone to force to take care of the child. 3. Make the >>>child attempt to fend for himself anyway. >>> ... >>>I see problems with all of these alternatives. Can someone show >>>me why the problems are not really problems, or think up alternative >>>4? and I said: >>Alternative 4 is supporting the child in a state-supported institution. and Gary said: >Your alternative 4 is the same as my alternative 1 (if taxes are paid >willingly) or 2 (if taxes are paid involuntarily). to which I reply: I assume taxes are paid willingly. You can actually refuse to pay taxes, if you are willing to accept the consequences. I would rather pay the consequences, under government, of refusing to pay tax (going to jail, at worst), than live without government. Would Gary? My alternative 4 is similar to alternative 1 in that the state must find employees to execute its responsibility. If you say the state employees are taking care of the child, they do it willingly for their salary. They cannot be forced (alternative 2) to work for the state. Again, taxation is not coercion. For one thing, we all pay taxes equally. If you want to compel a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term because she had sex, you might justify it by saying it's a tax on sex, and I don't suppose I could argue, provided the tax was imposed impartially. I wouldn't accept a tax on conception, because conception is not voluntary. How about a cash tax on sex, waived if a fetus is carried to term? You might waive the tax if a contraceptive is used, to encourage the use of contraceptives, but then you would have to allow free abortion if the contraceptive fails. The possibilities are intriguing. A little farther on I wrote: >>Yes, the right of a *fetus* to life is contingent >>on someone else's willingness to honor that right. Ultimately, the >>right of any of us to life is contingent on someone else's willingness >>to honor that right. and Gary replied: >I do not understand. First, you emphasize the word fetus, as if to say >that only a fetus's right to life is contingent on others, then you >go on to say that everyone's right to life is contingent on others. I reply: I think this is a vital point. A born person's right to life depends on others collectively, acting as a society under government. If any one person decides to murder you, and grasps the opportunity, you are dead. He may become dead too, but that won't revive you. Only the fetus's right to life depends on one unique person, and if she chooses not to support it the fetus is in deep trouble. Gary (among others) seems to resist the truth about government: that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, in order to preserve their rights, and that without government and its powers, their rights would vanish. He seems to go no further than the assertion they are endowed by their Creator with inherent (Jefferson's word, stricken by the Convention) and inalienable rights. Gary asks us to >Imagine the following scenario: > >"The defendant, charged with the murder of a homeless derelict with no >known living relatives, challenged the prosecution to find someone who >wanted the victim to remain alive. When the prosecution was unable to >find anyone who could prove a personal interest in the victim's life, >the case was dismissed." > >If the right to life is contingent on others, what (if anything) is >wrong with the above scenario? The state undertakes to protect the life, liberty, and property of every person. In fact, the murder trial was entered in the docket as "the state vs. ." So the defendant is promptly answered with "the state wanted the victim to remain alive." But since the state does not define a fetus as a person, for good practical legal reasons, the state need not say it wants a fetus to remain alive. Marty M. B. Brilliant (201)-949-1858 AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 houem!marty1