home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
- From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
- Subject: Re: I agree but ...
- Message-ID: <1992Nov23.013758.210@rotag.mi.org>
- Organization: Who, me???
- References: <1992Nov17.222645.24532@panix.com> <1992Nov22.011402.17739@rotag.mi.org> <33080@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:37:58 GMT
- Lines: 50
-
- In article <33080@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
- >In article <1992Nov22.011402.17739@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
- >(Kevin Darcy) writes to Jim as part of the chastity belt thread:
- >
- >>Oh, please. Consider the marginal cost/benefit of saving, on the one hand,
- >>an able-bodied, educated, income-producing adult, at a cost of getting a
- >>little wet, with, on the other hand, saving a small, blobby, unthinking,
- >>uncommunicating, non-contributing human organism at the cost of 9 months
- >>of pain, discomfort, lost economic productivity, serious medical costs, and
- >>risks of continuing medical costs or even death for the mother? Doesn't it
- >>occur to you that the example is so wildly non-analogous from the point of
- >>view of economic efficiency, as to be totally worthless?
- >
- >I agree, but would like to point out that the legal system is designed
- >to do much more than ensure economic efficiency; in fact, I would
- >argue that the protection of rights broadly defined is its principal
- >mission. This includes economic and property rights, but many other
- >rights as well. Bodily autonomy and privacy are not commodities that
- >can be exchanged in a market, and I am uncomfortable with any policy
- >that forces the government to compensate for the preventable loss of
- >rights.
-
- Well, it's common when presenting a legal case (which is sort of what I
- was trying to do above) to lead off with the STRONGEST argument, and follow
- that up with weaker arguments later if necessary. To me, the economic
- efficiency argument is the strongest reason to invalidate the analogy, but
- I think that argument mirrors a lot of the non-economic arguments as well,
- and certainly I wouldn't want to imply that the law is concerned ONLY with
- economic efficiency (although it almost seems as though some of the
- contemporary legal scholars I've read actually believe that).
-
- For another strong argument, consider that, mankind being basically a social
- animal (though some of us are less social than others :-), for any given adult,
- or to a comparable extent, even a child, to die unnecessarily is to cause a
- devastating psychological effect on those to whom the victim is close --
- friends, associates, relatives, offspring, significant others -- and this is
- also a reason to forbid the killing of born persons. But the same rationale
- does not apply to unwanted z/e/f's. This is another strong argument for
- invalidating the analogy, though I wouldn't say quite as strong as the
- economic efficiency argument.
-
- A weak argument for invalidating the argument, on the other hand, would be
- to point to the victim's mental anguish as he drowns.
-
- A while back, I posted a semi-lengthly "treatise" on the social policy
- aspects of murder. It's probably expired at your site by now, but if you
- want to see a more detailed and exhaustive exposition of my views on the
- subject, I could perhaps email you a copy.
-
- - Kevin
-