NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53342

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 5.8 KB | 124 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!mon
From: [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 113
Nntp-Posting-Host: hemlock
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:19:32 CST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>>>>[e-mail] (james.a.parker) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I argue for pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation
>>>>>> to provide support to the child.  This is independent of the question of
>>>>>> personhood.
>>>>>
>>>>>During most abortions, the child's right to bodily autonomy is
>>>>>violated.  If the child is a person, then you cannot support
>>>>>unrestricted abortion-on-demand using the notion of bodily
>>>>>autonomy.
>>>
>>>Yes, the fetus'es (not "child"s) right to bodily autonomy is violated, but the
>>>violation of the fetus is a LESSER violation, in terms of human suffering,
>>>than the alternative 9-month violation of the pregnant woman. So, where we
>>>HAVE to choose between the two, i.e. before the point of viability, it is
>>>valid to choose violation of the fetus'es BA.
>>>
>>>>Gee, Doug.  When are we going to see some evidence
>>>>from you that a fetus is _capable_ of bodily autonomy?
>>>
>>>Does it need to fill out a form, or what?
>>>
>>>No, Muriel, any human organism which _could_ function outside of the womb
>>>is by definition "capable" of bodily autonomy. This is, in fact, why
>>>viability is such an all-important dividing line.
>>>
>>Is it "capable" of reaching that state on its own?
>
>Is a woman capable of realizing her bodily autonomy versus a viable fetus
>"on her own"?

Yes.

>              No, she needs medical assistance in order to do so.

This statement is not correct.  Medical assistance may afford
the _best_ option for the woman to regain her autonomy, but it
surely isn't the only way.

>                                                             Similarly,
>a viable fetus needs medical assistance to realize -its- bodily autonomy. It's
>the same operation, of course, that allows -both- humans to concurrently
>realize their respective bodily autonomies.
>
Uhhhhh.  Do you think parturition is always an 'operation'?

>>As long as it's a fetus, it's _not_ "capable" of bodily autonomy.
>
>What do you think bodily autonomy _is_, Muriel? The word "autonomy", by
>itself, implies freedom from outside interference. The combined form "bodily
>autonomy" would seem to imply freedom from outside interference with one's
>body, would it not? Certainly, it implies nothing about one's ability to
>ASSERT that right in a verbal way -- just because a fetus can't shout "get
>that goddamned scalpel away from me!" from inside the womb doesn't necessarily
>mean it doesn't have any BA rights. Born humans, for example, have BA rights,
>whether they're sleeping, unconscious, in a coma -- it's not much of stretch
>then to say that humans could be considered to have BA rights in the
>non-conscious developmental stage between viability and birth.

I think it is.  Your definition of autonomy is a bit
narrow.  An entity that's surrounded by another's body
cannot be free from 'interference'.  That's a practical
consideration that affects the extent to which BA rights
_could_ be respected.  There is no way to award BA rights
to a fetus without removing those rights from a woman.
>
>>Which is why viability is such a red herring.
>
>Before viability, the fetus'es BA comes only at the expense of the woman's,
>so it is forfeit, but AFTER viability, the fetus'es BA is essentially
>independent of the woman's, so there is a valid if not compelling case for
>trying to balance the value of its BA against the mother's interests. To

You are living in a fantasy world, Kevin.  How can its
rights be 'essentially independent of the woman's'  when
her physical form prevents its motility?  A viable fetus
has _less_ physical autonomy than an embryo in some respects,
especially when it reaches the point where it can no longer
change its position.

>assert an -automatic- override of the fetus'es BA is to subjugate the whole
>BA concept to some other belief system -- e.g. Feminism, Individualism,
>Utilitarianism, Humanism, Christianity or whatever. I therefore consider it

Nonsense.  If I put you in a bag that restricts your
movement to just small flutters of the arms and legs,
would your lack of autonomy be a matter of ideology?

>somewhat a betrayal of the fundamental principles underlying the Bodily
>Autonomy argument. BA rights, in their purest formulation, apply across-the-
>board. If you're going to apply them selectively to one entity, but withhold
>them from another, I'd like to hear a justification for the disparate
>treatment.
>
A fetus is not a member of society until it is born, nor
is its viability a proven element until it is outside
a woman and breathing.  Assigning any rights at all to
a fetus will ultimately endanger the lives of women, no
matter how carefully the exceptions are worded.  It is a
conceptual stretch to assert that a fetus is capable of
autonomy, because its very survival, as long as it's a fetus,
depends on the woman's _constant_ 'interference'.  There
is _no_ sense of the word 'autonomy' that I can see applying
to a fetus in utero.

muriel
standard disclaimer