Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!tektronix!teklds!cae780!amdcad!amd!intelca!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!houem!marty1 From: marty1@houem.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <637@houem.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 19:33:06 EDT Article-I.D.: houem.637 Posted: Wed Oct 1 19:33:06 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 09:06:06 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> <631@houem.UUCP>, <1200@bunker.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 69 In <1200@bunker.UUCP>, garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) comments on an article I posted: >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. All these are similar to things we willingly pay government to do. >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. Seldom does the state actually do that, for the reason you cite. >>The state has eminent domain over real estate, but not over persons. > >Why does the state have eminent domain over real estate? The state uses real estate to promote its ends, which include protecting the rights of persons. Real estate does not have rights. >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? Alternative 4 is supporting the child in a state-supported institution. All these are used as and when appropriate, except that I do not believe alternative 2 is constitutionally valid. Actually, foster care at state expense (alternative 1) seems to fill in most of the gaps. Gary has stated the essential problems of the situation. But think of the alternatives if a fetus is to be protected: alternatives 1 (except for the natural mother) and 4 do not exist, and I believe alternative 2 to be unacceptable. 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. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1