Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's still mine
Message-ID: <1200@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 18:26:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.1200
Posted: Thu Sep 25 18:26:45 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 00:33:07 EDT
References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <madvax.444> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> <631@houem.UUCP>
Reply-To: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 60

>In <1091@ogcvax.UUCP>, pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) wrote:
>   I don't recall the Bill
>   of Rights mentioning anywhere a "right to a convenient life".  I do
>   recall a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Probably beside the point, but the Bill of Rights doesn't mention
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," either.  That phrase
is found in the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal force.

In article <631@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes:
>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.

Really?  How?  The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can
only protect a two-year-old by putting him or her in the custody
of someone.  This imposes on the pursuit of happiness of everyone
who pays taxes to enable the state to pay the cost of its police powers,
the cost of the investigation which led to the conclusion that the
two-year-old needed protection, the cost of finding a foster home,
the cost of followup (to make sure the child doesn't need protecting
again), and the cost of paying (some) of the foster family's expenses.

In some cases, protecting a two-year-old requires taking him away
from his current family, which may be imposing on their pursuit of
happiness.

>The state has eminent domain over real estate, but not over persons. 

Why does the state have eminent domain over real estate?

>The stage at which a living human thing
>becomes a person is precisely the stage at which the state can protect
>it as an individual without demanding the participation of some other
>unwilling individual.

There will be no such stage, until the state is completely funded by
revenue from plans in which participation is voluntary -- such as
contributions and contracts for services freely agreed to.

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.

Alternative 1 says that the child's right to life is contingent on
someone else's willingness to honor that right.

Alternative 2 says that the state *can* force someone to take care
of another person -- the parents are, in general, the most likely
candidates.

Alternative 3 says that there is no real right to life for those
unable to fend for themselves.

I see problems with all of these alternatives.  Can someone show
me why the problems are not really problems, or think up alternative
4?

Gary Samuelson