<div>Andreas et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So called "victimless" crimes are often not as victimless as claimed. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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).
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am aware this conclusion will be disliked by many, but the reasoning employed above demands this conclusion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/18/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andreas Schou</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Phil --<br><br>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.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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,.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>This was probably more words than the question demanded, but this is something I've really thought about.<br><br>-- ACS<br><br>-- ACS
<div><span><br><br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/18/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Phil Nisbet</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:pcnisbet1@hotmail.com">pcnisbet1@hotmail.com
</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Andreas<br><br>I am not sure that control of ones body is a complete right in all<br>circumstances either. Society makes rules with respect to perfectly logical
<br>functions like expectoration and defecation, the right to sell ones own <br>organs or the right to sell the services of ones own body. If the right to<br>privacy in the actions one takes with respect to ones body was an absolute,
<br>the act of prostitution could not be found to be illegal, since after all, <br>the body parts of the two individuals involved in such an act are definitely<br>parts belonging to the two people contracting in privacy to use something
<br>that definitely does not belong to the state.<br><br>I have often found it strange that there is an assumed universal right to <br>privacy with respect to an abortion, but no such right exists for people<br>involved in victimless crimes. We now have the right to kill ourselves if
<br>we are of sound mind, but if the same person of sound mind decides to ingest <br>certain substances, they can and will be jailed for long periods of time.<br>The substance used for the act of suicide can indeed be the same substance
<br>that in the non-lethal situation would place the person in jail. <br><br>Similarly, if a man takes a woman to dinner, a show, gives her flowers and a<br>gift of jewels and ends up in bed with her, there is a supposed right of
<br>privacy in the transaction. But if the same two people exchange far less <br>cash and hop into bed, they are doing so criminally and their right to<br>privacy ceases to exist, including a right of the government to film them in
<br>the act in Technicolor with Dolby sound for effect.<br><br>Perhaps it is best said, as did the Immortal Bard, the law is an ass. The <br>only thing consistent in the privacy issue is its very inconsistency.<br><br>Phil Nisbet
<br><br><br><br>>From: Andreas Schou <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>><br>>To: Donovan Arnold < <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">
donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>><br>>CC: <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>, Nick Gier <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:ngier@uidaho.edu">
ngier@uidaho.edu </a>><br>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops)<br>>Hangsinthe Balance<br>>Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:28:01 -0800<br>><br>>The right to an abortion is not the right to terminate another human life.
<br>>There exists no right to terminate another human life; otherwise, the right<br>>to abortion would extend to infanticide and murder. It does not.<br>><br>>The right that exists in an abortion is the right to control the processes
<br>>of your own body. Society has no right to dictate whether or not you are<br>>pregnant. It has no right to dictate whether you receive life-saving<br>>treatment if you don't want it. And, as the Supreme Court affirmed
<br>>yesterday, it has no right to control whether or not you die, if that<br>>decision is being made from rational deliberation and not under the<br>>compulsion of mental illness.<br>><br>>You do not have the right to purchase whatever you like. If such a right
<br>>existed, I would be driving to work in my gold-plated jet-powered Rolls<br>>Royce, when I felt like it. This is because resources are scarce; rights<br>>are<br>>not. The scarce resource to be allocated in this case -- which, I might
<br>>add,<br>>we have the <i>right</i> to allocate in a democracy -- is Moscow's retail<br>>business. Should we really allocate every last dollar of Moscow's retail<br>>business to a business, simply because it can afford to eat ten years of
<br>>zero profits and no other business in town can?<br>><br>>I really don't know why I'm doing this again, Donovan. It must be some<br>>infinite optimism about the basic reasonability of mankind. I've got to say
<br>>though: you've put a pretty big dent in infinity..<br>><br>>-- ACS<br>><br>>On 1/18/06, Donovan Arnold <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">
donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>> > <br>> > No where in any of my posting did I state I was for illegalizing<br>>abortion<br>> > Hansen nor did I make any correction. Pretty sad I have to post it TWICE
<br>>or<br>> > three times and you still do not comprehend. <br>> ><br>> > Now you know why I have to post three or four time. You cannot read or<br>> > comprehend arguments that are beyond the basic cookie cutter arguments
<br>>where<br>> > you are told how to think and respond with a set of preset responses. <br>> ><br>> > Again, why is it that a women's choice to terminate the life of a<br>> > developing human MORE PARAMOUNT then her right to buy, sell, and trade
<br>> > property with whom she wishes for essential goods that impact her <br>>quality of<br>> > life?<br>> ><br>> > How can one make one argument with the other?<br>> ><br>> > Are you only for women making a freedom of choice providing it is a
<br>>choice<br>> > you agree with?<br>> ><br>> > _DJA<br>> ><br>> > *Tom Hansen <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">
thansen@moscow.com</a>>* wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Yes, Arnold.<br>> > <br>> > However, I posted prior to your second (or was it third?) correction.<br>> ><br>> > You really must get out more, Arnold.
<br>> ><br>> > Enough said.<br>> ><br>> > Tom Hansen <br>> > Moscow, Idaho<br>> ><br>> > "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of<br>> > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
<br>>skid <br>> > in sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body<br>>thoroughly<br>> > used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'"<br>> > ------------------------------
<br>> > *From:* Donovan Arnold [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>]<br>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:03 PM
<br>> > *To:* Tom Hansen; 'Nick Gier'; <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> > *Subject:* RE: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops)
<br>> > Hangs inthe Balance<br>> ><br>> > Hansen,<br>> > <br>> > Do you read what the other person writes before responding? Seriously.<br>> ><br>> > You wrote:<br>> > "Simply eliminating legal abortions will not eliminate abortions
<br>> > altogether, Arnold." <br>> ><br>> > My argument, if you actually read it, you would have discovered that I<br>> > stated I OPPOSED illegalizing abortion.<br>> ><br>> > It is you that wish to impose your preferences and beliefs on other
<br>> > people, just like the religious right, you just have a different set of<br>> > preferences and beliefs that you wish to impose on me.<br>> ><br>> > Take Care,<br>> ><br>> > Donovan J Arnold
<br>> > _____________________________________________________<br>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> > <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="http://www.fsr.net/">
http://www.fsr.net</a> !<br>> > mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------ <br>> > Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover<br>> > Photo<br>>Books<<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="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">
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</a>>.<br>> > You design it and we'll bind it!
<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _____________________________________________________<br>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>> > <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> > mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ <br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br><br><br>>_____________________________________________________<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> mailto:
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ <br><br>_________________________________________________________________
<br>Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/">http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br></span></div><br>_____________________________________________________<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>