NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/legal/21967

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 10.6 KB

Xref: sparky misc.legal:21967 alt.abortion.inequity:6245 talk.abortion:53911
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!geac!torag!zooid!goid
From: Will Steeves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Embryos as Property?
X-To: J H WOODYATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:12:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss
Sender: Will Steeves <[e-mail]>
Notes: This *is* a Devil's Advocate discussion, By The Way...
Lines: 222

[e-mail] (J H Woodyatt) writes...
>You have some serious cross-posting habits, Mr. Steeves, but I'll
>play.    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not really, Mr. Woodyatt.  I usually post messages on this topic to a.a.i
and t.a (even though I do not subscribe to t.a.), and since we were
considering a legal issue, I also crossposted to misc.legal.


>[e-mail] (Will Steeves) writes:
># [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt) writes...
># JHW> Here.  Play with this:
>#
># JHW> Frozen embryos.  While in transit through another sovereign nation,
># JHW> they are taken into custody by agents of that foreign nation, wherein
># JHW> they expire as a result of mistreatment.  Since embryos are persons,
># JHW> and therefore *not* property under U.S. law, the foreign nation is
># JHW> `responsible' for the death of those `persons' rather than the
># JHW> destruction of property
>#      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>#
># Ah, so you *would* consider embryos as property, then?

>>Really, Mr. Steeves, brush up on your reading comprehension.  I did
>>not imply that.

Perhaps, but it could have been taken as though you had.  Allow me to
explain why:

>Allow me to clear things up for you though... in my
>view, zygotes/embryos/fetuses/etcetera present a difficult problem in
>that we pathetic humans have a bad tendency to classify everything
>that isn't a person as property, either private or (get this, it's a
>gas) public -- meaning something that isn't a person is either owned
>by someone, some group or by everybody.

For sure, you are indeed right about this.  I have heard some of the more
radical "Pro-Choice" feminists speaking of "foetuses" as their "property,"
and indeed, even some have gone on to say that women should have the "right
to abort" even their pre-adult children (!), because they are not "fully
persons" (!?!).  If you wish, I'll look up the letter to the editor of the
University of Toronto _Varsity_, from the person who expressed the latter
half of this view.  I realise that you're bound to accuse me of making
strawpeople, and say that "This is only a small minority," which I'll
grant is true, but still, that anyone *should* have this view, frankly
disgusts me.

In regards to why I may have mistaken what you said, I would point out that
the last sentence of the paragraph which I quoted, seems to have implied
that you have "bought into" this either-or view of "person or property," in
the sense that you seemed to be saying that the foreign governments in your
example should be responsible for destruction of persons rather than the
destruction of property, as if to say that if they are not persons, then
they *are* indeed property.  This paragraph *does* seem to indicate a view
of "if it isn't a person, then it's property".  Now granted, you just
explained that you *don't* have this opinion, so I'd be willing to grant you
the benefit of the doubt, but before insulting my "reading comprehension,"
do realise that your wording may have been open to a slight amount of
misinterpretation.


>Some humans have a terribly
>bad habit of depersonalizing other humans (live *born* humans) so that
>they may be considered property, but by and by we're arriving at a
>stage in our development where most of us don't think of living,
>breathing, born, human persons as potentially someone's property.

This problem seems to be evident among the more radical "Pro Choice" people
such as those whom I mentioned above.  I have not seen a single "Pro Life"
person claim that a "foetus" (or the mother, by the way) is property.


>We typically don't want to consider zygotes/embryos/fetuses/etcetera
>as persons for various reasons, yet considering them to be property
>makes a few people ill at ease,

Yes, and you may count me as one of them.


> and I'm not sure our modern legal
>system has had the cojones to approach the problem seriously.

I agree.  This is somewhat unfortunate.


>Myself, I think that inventing a third class of objects just for
>zygotes/embryos/fetuses/etcetera that is neither `property' nor
>`persons' is the most difficult, but perhaps the most prudent course
>of action.

I object to your use of the word "object".  Still, a third legal class
*might* be the best idea, though this class should place them *well* above
the status of "objects".


># This wasn't meant to be taken as a flame ; I'm just curious as to why
># you would want to admit this, while many other "Pro choice" people
># have stayed clear of using terminology such as this, perhaps out of
># fear of being flamed by "pro-lifers" who might accuse them of
># believing potential children as merely someone's property.

>I have little trouble with this concept.  I can deal with the idea
>that anything that isn't a person can be property.  I can deal with
>flames from pro-`life'rs too.  Fact, it's one of my hobbies.

To repeat, I was *not* flaming you, but your responses have seemed to
indicate that you consider me as having been insulting towards you.  And
to repeat again, it was another of those so-called "Devil's Advocate"
arguments, and was merely meant to bring up the topic of "if foetuses
*were* property, would there be compensation for involuntary property
loss?".


># Of course, if embryos *are* property, then why could it not be argued
># that *both* of the people who contributed to its creation, should have
># rights to "its" disposition?

>Because personal property rights don't work that way.  The only people
>who have a right to control private property are the owners of the
>property.

Why would you consider the woman as being the only "owner"?  Is it not the
case that all those who share credit for building a property, share jointly
in its ownership, unless it could be argued that one party did more or less
than the other, towards the actual building or creation?  Indeed, the fact
that the woman is solely responsible for "its" nurture is irrelevant to the
issue of *how* "it" was created, is it not?  However, while it *is* true
that it could be said that the woman is a greater contributor to the actual
post-creation "building" of the "property," should this not give him merely
*less* ownership as opposed to *none at all*?

>#                              Naturally, it would be a different
># matter when the embryo is located in someone else's body, but if I
># recall correctly, situations where two parties have joint ownership,
># but only party has exclusive rights to the disposition of that
># property, the other party *does* receive compensation if that property
># is sold, used for profit, or (if you have already guessed where I'm
># headed...), destroyed.
>Yeah, I see where you're going -- so I'll just yank on the chain
>labelled `joint ownership?' and pull you back into the real world.  I
>>> Continued to next message

 * SLMR 2.1a * GOD.SYS not found, changing default to SATAN.SYS.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So perhaps it *isn't* an issue of *joint* ownership, since the woman
contributes more the actual building than the man (though not more with
respect to the actual creation), but while this should give him *less* of
a stake in ownership, I see no reason why there should be an implication
of *none* whatsoever, since he at least shared equally in the actual
creation of the "property".


>remind you that ownership is not the same as custody, and in the case
>of an embryo in a woman's womb (should we agree for the sake of argument
>to consider it `property') any claim a man might make to joint
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ownership is inherently suspicious.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why?  As I said before, they both created "it," so why should they *not*
be considered as "co-owners," though perhaps not necessarily as "joint"
owners?


># I realise that this is a Devil's Advocate argument, but I should say
># right from the start that I consider it absolutely invidious to
># consider unborn persons as property,

>Heh.  I consider it an egregious fallacy to consider `unborn persons'
>to be anything other than an oxymoron.  We should just chalk this up
>to a difference of opinion (whilst each of us tries to influence the
>legal system in our own puny ways to adopt the view that the other of
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>us is a lunatic and ought to be summarily ignored).
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have *never* attempted to influence *anyone* to believe that you are a
lunatic and should be summarily ignored.  Do you believe that I have?


>#                                      *but* if they *were* considered
># as such, would there not be some sort of financial compensation owing
># to men for involuntary loss of property after an abortion??

>No.  Men would experience no loss of property as a result of a woman's
>abortion unless they have a valid claim to joint ownership to the
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>product of conception, which as I've already said is inherently a
>dicey proposal.  Embryos don't often come with pink slips or receipts,
>you know.

Why does there have to be *joint* ownership, to allow for compensation?
Shouldn't *any* degree of ownership justify some amount of compensation?


># (Boy, I can just *imagine* the flameworks starting now...)

>You do seem to have an active imagination; I will compliment you for
>that.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I wasn't *attempting* to imagine anything, nor was I attempting to argue
for or against compensation.  I was only attempting to show the dangers
of considering embryos as property.  Even so, it *would* be interesting to
consider what *would* happen if embroys were considered as property.


>P.S.  Please, Mr. Steeves, set your right margin <= 75 characters.

Unfortunately, neither my mail reader, nor my home machine's QWK interface,
is capable of being configured to this extent.

---
Will Steeves, [e-mail]                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
[phone]

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.


 * SLMR 2.1a * GOD.SYS not found, changing default to SATAN.SYS.