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: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 6
- Message-ID: <1992Nov22.011402.17739@rotag.mi.org>
- Organization: Who, me???
- References: <1992Nov17.065357.18024@panix.com> <32783@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> <1992Nov17.222645.24532@panix.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:14:02 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <1992Nov17.222645.24532@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
- >
- >I take you out in my boat knowing that you can't swim and that you're
- >extraordinarily clumsy (as helpless as a babe, you might say). If you
- >fall in, my guess is that I would be held legally responsible to pull
- >you out. On the other hand, if some third party threw you into the
- >water next to my boat I believe I would have no such responsiblity.
- >Your right to live would be the same in either case, but my legal
- >obligation to help realize that right would depend on whether the
- >danger you were in resulted from my action or from the action of a
- >third party.
-
- 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?
-
- - Kevin
-