Re: An euthanasia/abortion ship

den Otter (
Sun, 4 Apr 1999 19:49:30 +0200

> From: Michael S. Lorrey <>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 20:52:39 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> > >The most important issue is the legal one of course; what flag (of
> > >convenience) to use? Perhaps some backward country which simply
> > >doesn't have euthanasia/abortion rules, if something like that
> > >exists, could be used.
> >
> > Unfortunately, such a "backward" country would also be unable to
> > prevent boarding by overzealous coast guard and naval gunships from
> > mighty nations, pirates, ecoactivists, churches, terrorists and your
> > stray smugglers.

Ecoactivists have little to do with abortion/euthanasia, churches have no sea power (and must mind their image, so they'll be limited to some verbal abuse), pirates are only a real problem in certain (mostly coastal) regions which can be avoided, and of course the ship would have defences (detection systems, guys with guns etc.), in fact, due to the possibility of "pro-life" (heh) terrorist attacks, more so than most ships. No easy target for lighty armed thugs of any ilk. Smugglers have better things to than attacking ships. Otherwise, see pirates. This leaves us with big nations' warships and fanatical terrorists. The only (big) country which would be likely to attack is IMO the US, but according to Michael Lorrey (see below) they apparently lack the legal fundament to take you on, so you could presumably sue them if they did something. As for ("pro-life") terrorist attacks, the anti-pirate measures plus airport-style safety features at the entry point should keep them them out.

> You are assuming that the zealots are quite aware enough of the activity
> to object to it.

As one must advertize in one way or another to get customers, they'd probably find out fairly soon. However, the really nasty zealots usually operate in the US. They attack the abortion clinics because they're easy targets (close by, relatively weak defences). Shooting doctors in or near their home is easier still. Attacking an armed ship which cruises the high seas is a whole different ballgame; you'll need much better planning and a lot more fanaticism. The chances of being blown to bits are *much* greater.

> > >would other countries give you any serious trouble?
> >
> > Let's see: Japan, Russia, the USA, the UK, France, Germany, Italy,
> > Spain, Portugal, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Cuba... Did I
> > forget most Muslim nations?
> Actually, there is no federal law against euthanasia. There are several
> states which allow it, while the rest ban it. The US Coast Guard would
> be in a quandary as to which state to prosecute you in, and you could
> easily get off since federal officials are do not have jursidiction to
> enforce state laws, so if you are in international waters they are SOL.

Assuming that the above construction is airtight, this is good news indeed. As for the other countries: they are considerably less militant and/or able to cause you much trouble in international waters.

> > >What would their legal possibilities be for harassment (assuming you stay
> > >in international waters all the time)?
> >
> > Add to the above Greenpeace, the Medellin cartel,

As long as you don't perform euthanasia on dolphins or drug runners, these two shouldn't give you any trouble.

> > the Roman Catholic
> > Church...

Some irrelevant verbal abuse only...

> > >Thoughts, anyone?
> >
> > Yes, and this isn't a joke. You might be safer finding just such a
> > willing nation and building the center on land.

That would sacrifice the mobility, special atmosphere (cruise) and autonomy (self-defense possibilities) in general. Also, a ship can simply switch flags if necessary, but if you have a building you could lose everything should your host nation decide that you're no longer welcome.

> > You might even be able to convince a nation such as China to sponsor
> > you. Fairly dictatorial; but if they say it's fine with them, also
> > fairly safe from foreign intervention.
> Yeah, but bribes everywhere.

Yes, but it would be hard to escape those anyway. Perhaps one of the former USSR countries would also be an option.

> > Above all, consult with Scientologists: they're used to dealing with
> > legal harrassment concerning their health care choices. There might be
> > some states that might not prove as inimical to the concept on the
> > USA.
> Yes, this is where it might pay to set up a religion to provide the
> legal protection for such activities. If it is established that
> cryopreservation of living persons, euthanasia, etc are all religious
> sacraments, then you can get protection pushed through, though there
> will most likely be court challenges.

Would (slightly modified) transhumanism qualify as a religion? Anyway, if the US hasn't a legal base to take you on and some other country is willing to lend you its flag, you're ok.