Correction: Re: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose,
Personal Choice & Social Harm
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 05:58:53 PST 2006
All:
The phrase in my text below, "new born fetus," of course is an oxymoron.
There are a few other errors which the reader can "read through" but this
oxymoron was just too much. Moron indeed!
Ted Moffett
On 1/19/06, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andreas et. al.
>
> I am surprised to find I disagree with you on so many points in this
> thread. You must already know much of what I am going to point out, so I
> suppose your statements on these issues are just accidental over statements
> on your part.
>
> There is a right to terminate another life, capitol punishment. This is
> often referenced in the abortion debate, because so many who oppose abortion
> sanction the death penalty, with some claiming this is hypocritical.
>
> Society most definitely can force someone to receive life saving treatment
> when they don't want it. Doctors cannot legally cooperate with suicide
> except in very special circumstances, and not in all states. If you are not
> dying of a terminal illness, all doctors must provide life saving treatment
> if they can, even when someone makes it perfectly clear they wish to die.
>
> The prostitute may indeed harm others, and the drug addict also, via
> breaking up a family by cooperating with adultery or spreading STDs for the
> former, and via the socially shared medical costs to treat addiction or the
> costs to a family when an addict is a bad parent or spouse, for the later.
> Addicts also support harmful crime (gangs, etc.) when they buy drugs in some
> cases, so I do not think it is valid to claim the drug users are as innocent
> as you seem to assert.
>
> So called "victimless" crimes are often not as victimless as claimed.
>
> Here are a few questions we might consider in the debate about how far we
> should allow the state to make illegal risk taking or other forms of
> behavior that involve personal choices between consenting adults to live
> ones life as one wishes, even when harm to oneself or others does indeed
> occur:
>
> Should the state assess the damages that all acts inflict on a person or
> others, and then insist that legal penalties should always apply to these
> cases in proportion to this assessed damage?
>
> And is the principle of allowing individual freedom and personal choice in
> some cases not reducible to submission to other principles regarding using
> the power of the state to protect the individual and society from harm?
>
> We see this debate ongoing on many fronts with the state regulating
> peoples lives to protect them and society from harm, even when the
> individuals willingly and knowingly wish to assume the risks of their
> behavior.
>
> I once asked a convenience store clerk in Moscow if they had any ethical
> problems with selling tobacco, given the damage this plant and the drug it
> contains (nicotine) is associated with in our society, death and health care
> costs that exceed the death and damage from all illegal drugs many, many
> times over. I was told that it is a personal choice, so the clerk claimed
> they did not feel bad at all. Of course this so called "personal choice"
> inflicts misery beyond belief when loved ones must watch their beloved die a
> slow painful expensive death by cancer, etc.resulting from an addiction to
> the powerfully addictive drug (nicotine) tobacco, not to mention the medical
> costs driving up the cost of medical care and medical insurance.
>
> Yet many in our society agree that smoking is a personal choice, and
> should not be made illegal with those selling tobacco and using it going to
> jail (except in the case of minors, a law that is so soft with so limited
> penalties that it is a joke compared to the penalties for many illegal
> drugs).
>
> In other words, many people view selling and smoking tobacco as a personal
> choice involving irreducible rights of individual freedom that should not be
> submitted to other principles regarding using the power of the state to
> protect the individual and society from harm.
>
> Why do we view tobacco with this tolerance given the harm it inflicts?
> Tradition and irrational bias no doubt are part of the reason, just as these
> variables in a reverse application are part of the reason adult prostitution
> and cannabis use are crimes, when they inflict far less harm than tobacco
> use.
>
> Anyway, I am far away from the issue of abortion, though the fact it is
> called often a "women's right to choose" relates to the issue of whether
> there are any irreducible principles of personal freedom and control over
> ones life that the state should not be able to overrule, based on the harm a
> personal choice can or might inflict on a person or society.
>
> Abortion inflicts harm, even if we skip the issue of the existing or
> potential "personhood" of the fetus that might require abortion to be viewed
> as "murder."
>
> It is an egregious misstatement to call those who support the right to
> abortion "pro abortion." I do not know anyone who is "pro abortion."
> Everyone I know would be happier if abortion never occurred. Everyone
> agrees abortion is harmful. Many women and men are very saddened and
> traumatized by abortion (I do not mean medically traumatized, a rare
> occurrence), and can face serious psychological problems, even when they
> view it as the best decision.
>
> It is often stated that the issue of the "personhood" or potential
> personhood of the fetus is the critical issue in abortion. I do not think
> this issue is as easily solved as some seem to think, nor do I think that
> many of those who support the right to abortion realize that this approach
> can easily be utilized to argue that abortion is "murder," when they
> use the brain development of the fetus as a guide to when abortion is or is
> not illegal at what point of development, linking this development to the
> point at which "personhood" begins.
>
> I think the critical legal issues are 1) Whether a women has the right to
> control the processes of her own body, and also her future, given the
> implications that giving birth implies long after the pregnancy ends, and 2)
> When can a fetus survive on its own without facing serious damage. If a
> fetus realistically without damage cannot survive on its own apart from a
> women's body, I think a case can be made the fetus is really a part of the
> women's body, thus falling under the irreducible right the women has to make
> independent free choices regarding her body.
>
> The notion of a fetus attaining personhood based on brain development is a
> very complicated and debatable point, given that we confer rights of
> personhood on disabled or "challenged" individuals who have very limited
> cognitive capabilities, with actual congenital brain abnormalities and
> limited abilities to make rational choices. And also given the fact that
> some animals have more intellectual capabilities of some sorts than a new
> born human, though we don't confer upon these animals "human" rights, which
> suggests that even a new born fetus has not achieved the full development of
> the human brain that truly confers rational human decision making, rendering
> the new born still in some sense possessing "potential" personhood. The
> infant brain undergoes considerable development and neuronal connection
> formation long after birth.
>
> Following this argument does lead some to think that "potential"
> personhood is a legal principle that should be applied to protect new borns,
> and that potential personhood deserves full legal protection against
> "murder," and thus should be applied to fetuses as well, meaning abortion is
> "murder" in nearly all cases, with exceptions such as the health of the
> mother, or perhaps rape, or when fetal abnormalities make normal brain
> development impossible.
>
> There may be variations in the speed of the maturity of development in
> different fetuses, making it difficult to determine an exact lenght of
> pregnancy to determine legal from illegal abortions, applying the viability
> condition for legal and illegal abortions, an abortion legal one day, then
> illegal after midnight.
>
> Nonetheless, given all the above problems and complexities, I think a
> women should have the irreducible right to control her own body with legal
> access to abortion. And that the central legal issue is this right to
> control ones own body (not the "personhood" of the fetus), despite all the
> harm this may inflict and the extremely problematic human rights issues
> involved in allowing the termination of a fetus. Once the fetus can survive
> apart from the women's body, regardless of whether it can be proved
> "personhood" has been reached, legal abortion becomes very difficult to
> defend, according to this analysis. because no one will dispute the fetus
> has "potential" personhood.
>
> The fetus can be claimed to not be a part of the women's body subject to
> her free choice to do as she wishes with her body when the fetus can
> realistically without serious damage survive on its own, even if this
> requires medical assistance.
>
> I am aware this conclusion will be disliked by many, but the reasoning
> employed above demands this conclusion.
>
> I am not sure how to parse the constitutional rights involved in the
> specific claim I am making for a "right" to control ones own body, so those
> more informed can perhaps enlighten. It is clear many laws do not allow the
> full right to control ones own body in all cases, so this "right" is limited
> in current law.
>
> Arguing from this principle of the right of adults to control their own
> body, I think drug sale and use and prostitution between consenting adults
> should be legal, though sensible regulation is of course required. HIV
> positive prostitutes would be illegal, for example, and tainted drugs
> illegal, just as "moonshine" is now illegal, though alcohol sold under state
> regulation is legal. All advertising for all drugs, of course including
> alcohol and tobacco, should be outlawed, which renders my view both
> libertarian and socialist at the same time.
>
> I am astounded that both tobacco and alcohol are allowed to be advertised
> aggressively given the fantastic harm abuse of both of these drugs inflict,
> harm exceeding all illegal drug use many, many times over. Those adults who
> choose to use drugs, even the popular and tremendously destructive drugs
> tobacco and alcohol, should have the freedom to do so, but society does have
> an interest in not allowing aggressive promotion of the use of very
> destructive drugs via massive advertising bombarding us from all sides.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
> On 1/18/06, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Phil --
> >
> > There definitely is an inconsistency in these laws. I do believe,
> > though, that there's an underlying right that has been poorly articulated by
> > both liberals and conservatives -- largely both sides have some sort of
> > compelling interest. Liberals don't want to look like wimps on crime, and
> > conservatives, especially religious conservatives, often believe that
> > maintaining social order overrides any thinking about "rights". I realize
> > that you may be toward the libertarian end of the spectrum, so don't think
> > that I'm talking about you.
> >
> > From the point of view of the prostitute or the point of view of the
> > addict, these crimes are victimless. The prostitute isn't hurting anyone but
> > themself. The addict isn't hurting anyone but themself. From the point of
> > view of the prostitute's pimp or john, or the point of view of the addict's
> > dealer, there is a victim: the prostiute or addict themself.
> >
> > As a domestic violence advocate, I am well-acquainted with crimes in
> > which there exists a certain amount of consent on the part of the victim.
> > People often choose to stay in abusive relationships because they have a
> > compelling economic interest, or because they might lose their housing if
> > they leave the perpetrator, and so on and so on. But despite the fact that
> > they consent to an aspect of the crime -- they don't report it -- this does
> > not mean that a crime has not occurred. A criminal act is not a tort: it is
> > not just an offense against another person, but also an offense against the
> > civil order. While I agree with the general legal principle that victimless
> > crimes should not exist, it's a profoundly bad legal idea to start to allow
> > people to consent to crimes committed against them. This legalizes, amongst
> > other things, duelling, prostitution, drugs, and most domestic violence,.
> >
> > In terms of drugs, an effective and sensible policy might be to punish
> > those who sell and treat those who ingest -- which handles the drug issue
> > from a supply and demand perspective. In terms of prostitution, arrest the
> > johns, arrest the pimps, provide services to the prostitutes. There exists a
> > strong principle in Western law that economic coercion should be illegal: I
> > cannot offer you a deal whereby I don't shoot you in the head in exchange
> > for a thousand dollars. It should likewise be illegal to offer a deal where
> > you provide a twelve hour respite from a serious medical condition --
> > withdrawal -- in exchange for far more than the product is worth.
> >
> > I admit that some ambiguity exists in both situations. Selling pot?
> > Basically a victimless crime. Despite eighty years of trying to convince
> > America, marijuana is still not addictive. Well regulated escort services
> > with well-paid escorts? Not intrinsically exploitive. But these are the
> > exceptions, not the rule, and in these cases -- as with the case of abortion
> > -- I am willing to allow a little fudging around the edges in order for
> > things to be run smoothly and for competing interests to be allowed some
> > leeway. I don't demand, for instance, the total legalazation of abortion
> > twenty minutes before birth: there exists, in that case, a definite
> > competing interest on the part of the fetus-soon-to-be-infant.
> >
> > This was probably more words than the question demanded, but this is
> > something I've really thought about.
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
> >
> > On 1/18/06, Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > I am not sure that control of ones body is a complete right in all
> > > circumstances either. Society makes rules with respect to perfectly
> > > logical
> > > functions like expectoration and defecation, the right to sell ones
> > > own
> > > organs or the right to sell the services of ones own body. If the
> > > right to
> > > privacy in the actions one takes with respect to ones body was an
> > > absolute,
> > > the act of prostitution could not be found to be illegal, since after
> > > all,
> > > the body parts of the two individuals involved in such an act are
> > > definitely
> > > parts belonging to the two people contracting in privacy to use
> > > something
> > > that definitely does not belong to the state.
> > >
> > > I have often found it strange that there is an assumed universal right
> > > to
> > > privacy with respect to an abortion, but no such right exists for
> > > people
> > > involved in victimless crimes. We now have the right to kill
> > > ourselves if
> > > we are of sound mind, but if the same person of sound mind decides to
> > > ingest
> > > certain substances, they can and will be jailed for long periods of
> > > time.
> > > The substance used for the act of suicide can indeed be the same
> > > substance
> > > that in the non-lethal situation would place the person in jail.
> > >
> > > Similarly, if a man takes a woman to dinner, a show, gives her flowers
> > > and a
> > > gift of jewels and ends up in bed with her, there is a supposed right
> > > of
> > > privacy in the transaction. But if the same two people exchange far
> > > less
> > > cash and hop into bed, they are doing so criminally and their right to
> > > privacy ceases to exist, including a right of the government to film
> > > them in
> > > the act in Technicolor with Dolby sound for effect.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it is best said, as did the Immortal Bard, the law is an
> > > ass. The
> > > only thing consistent in the privacy issue is its very inconsistency.
> > >
> > > Phil Nisbet
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com>
> > > >To: Donovan Arnold < donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> > > >CC: vision2020 at moscow.com, Nick Gier < ngier at uidaho.edu >
> > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops)
> > > >Hangsinthe Balance
> > > >Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:28:01 -0800
> > > >
> > > >The right to an abortion is not the right to terminate another human
> > > life.
> > > >There exists no right to terminate another human life; otherwise, the
> > > right
> > > >to abortion would extend to infanticide and murder. It does not.
> > > >
> > > >The right that exists in an abortion is the right to control the
> > > processes
> > > >of your own body. Society has no right to dictate whether or not you
> > > are
> > > >pregnant. It has no right to dictate whether you receive life-saving
> > > >treatment if you don't want it. And, as the Supreme Court affirmed
> > > >yesterday, it has no right to control whether or not you die, if that
> > > >decision is being made from rational deliberation and not under the
> > > >compulsion of mental illness.
> > > >
> > > >You do not have the right to purchase whatever you like. If such a
> > > right
> > > >existed, I would be driving to work in my gold-plated jet-powered
> > > Rolls
> > > >Royce, when I felt like it. This is because resources are scarce;
> > > rights
> > > >are
> > > >not. The scarce resource to be allocated in this case -- which, I
> > > might
> > > >add,
> > > >we have the <i>right</i> to allocate in a democracy -- is Moscow's
> > > retail
> > > >business. Should we really allocate every last dollar of Moscow's
> > > retail
> > > >business to a business, simply because it can afford to eat ten years
> > > of
> > > >zero profits and no other business in town can?
> > > >
> > > >I really don't know why I'm doing this again, Donovan. It must be
> > > some
> > > >infinite optimism about the basic reasonability of mankind. I've got
> > > to say
> > > >though: you've put a pretty big dent in infinity..
> > > >
> > > >-- ACS
> > > >
> > > >On 1/18/06, Donovan Arnold < donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > No where in any of my posting did I state I was for illegalizing
> > > >abortion
> > > > > Hansen nor did I make any correction. Pretty sad I have to post it
> > > TWICE
> > > >or
> > > > > three times and you still do not comprehend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you know why I have to post three or four time. You cannot
> > > read or
> > > > > comprehend arguments that are beyond the basic cookie cutter
> > > arguments
> > > >where
> > > > > you are told how to think and respond with a set of preset
> > > responses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, why is it that a women's choice to terminate the life of a
> > > > > developing human MORE PARAMOUNT then her right to buy, sell, and
> > > trade
> > > > > property with whom she wishes for essential goods that impact her
> > > >quality of
> > > > > life?
> > > > >
> > > > > How can one make one argument with the other?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you only for women making a freedom of choice providing it is
> > > a
> > > >choice
> > > > > you agree with?
> > > > >
> > > > > _DJA
> > > > >
> > > > > *Tom Hansen < thansen at moscow.com>* wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Arnold.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I posted prior to your second (or was it third?)
> > > correction.
> > > > >
> > > > > You really must get out more, Arnold.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enough said.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Hansen
> > > > > Moscow, Idaho
> > > > >
> > > > > "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
> > > > > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but
> > > rather to
> > > >skid
> > > > > in sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body
> > > >thoroughly
> > > > > used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'"
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > *From:* Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com]
> > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:03 PM
> > > > > *To:* Tom Hansen; 'Nick Gier'; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > *Subject:* RE: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she
> > > shops)
> > > > > Hangs inthe Balance
> > > > >
> > > > > Hansen,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you read what the other person writes before responding?
> > > Seriously.
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote:
> > > > > "Simply eliminating legal abortions will not eliminate abortions
> > > > > altogether, Arnold."
> > > > >
> > > > > My argument, if you actually read it, you would have discovered
> > > that I
> > > > > stated I OPPOSED illegalizing abortion.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is you that wish to impose your preferences and beliefs on
> > > other
> > > > > people, just like the religious right, you just have a different
> > > set of
> > > > > preferences and beliefs that you wish to impose on me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take Care,
> > > > >
> > > > > Donovan J Arnold
> > > > > _____________________________________________________
> > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net !
> > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
> > > > > Photo
> > > >Books<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photobooks/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38088/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//page?.file=photobook_splash.html
> > > >.
> > > > > You design it and we'll bind it!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _____________________________________________________
> > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >_____________________________________________________
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060119/df11752e/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list