Re: An euthanasia/abortion ship

Michael S. Lorrey (
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 12:00:18 -0400 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.

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

> >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.

> >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, the Roman Catholic
> Church...
> With the U.N. granting virtual letters of marque & reprisal to any
> member nation with their "crimes against humanity" rules, you'd also
> be prey to any international conglomerate. There's no such thing as
> "international waters" when it comes to pursuing individual courses of
> action held anathema by U.N. members: for them, it just means "open
> season for all."

Greenpeace needs a few more ships sunk. The Roman Catholics have no navy, nor any coast to guard or to port ships at, while the UN has no navy. They can issue a marque for anyone to pursue, but then again you are dealing with a body where it takes at least a couple of the heavyweights on the Security Council to get ANYTHING done, and all you have to do is bribe the temporary 3rd world member who just happens to be sitting on it that year.

> >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.
> 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.

> 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.

> Another clue: unincorporated US territories aren't fully under federal
> legislation. Sadly, the freest territory from US legislation is Puerto
> RIco, which also happens to be rather socially conservative and
> extremely centralized in local government affairs.

Unincorporated US territories are completely under federal law, as they are federal trust territories. PR gets tax preferences as a bribe to stay in association with us and for no other reason. They also have a special 'commonwealth' status that our other territories do not enjoy. If they had to pay taxes to the gringos they would have been gone a long time ago.

Mike Lorrey