NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53456

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 9.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!asuvax!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:59:16 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group
Lines: 197

From article <[e-mail]>,
by [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson):
> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>From article <[e-mail]>,
>>by [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson):

>>> In article <[e-mail]>
>>> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>>>>From article <[e-mail]>,
>>>>by [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson):

> [exchange with Doug about 'moral weight' deleted.]

>>> [...]                     There have been several patient
>>> souls (I seem to remember Adrienne in particular) who have
>>> pointed out in the past week that as long as the fetus is
>>> _inside_ the woman, its presence and its prospective departure
>>> pose a nonzero risk of death for her.

>>I fully acknowledge this fact, and I'm starting to regret entering
>>a discussion that is framed around what someone else (in this case
>>Doug H.) said.  Nevertheless, I'd like to state that it was my
>>impression that the debate was centered on inherent moral differences
>>between a late-term fetus and an infant.  If so, I question whether
>>the location of the fetus/infant and the danger it poses are really
>>inherent characteristics (in terms of morality) possessed by the
>>fetus/infant.

> Careful.  A woman's body is always _more_ than a mere
> 'location'.

[Wince].  I hope that I didn't imply anything less.  My wife can
testify on my behalf.

> Since the very definition of 'fetus' hinges
> on a state of pregnancy for a woman, which is a profoundly
> altering physical condition, I maintain that it's a morally
> significant component of the fetus' existance.

I just can't go with you on this one.  Please help me understand.
What is it about being a fetus that renders one less morally
significant than when one becomes a neonate?

Is it:    1) Dependence upon the mother for sustenance?
    2) Anatomical connection to the mother via the placenta?
    3) Occupation of (and expansion of) one of the mother's
        pelvic cavities?
    4) Alteration of the mother's metabolism?
    5) Danger to the mother resulting from impending parturition?
    6) Some combination of all or none of the above?

>>Here's an example of what I'm thinking in this situation:
>>
>> A person is being held prisoner in a field.  Another person arrives,
>> assesses the situation, considers the risks to his or her safety as
>> well as the risks to others in a nearby field, and decides to attempt
>> a rescue.
>>
>> Another person is being held in a fortified building.  After careful
>> consideration, the would-be rescuer decides against a rescue attempt,
>> concluding that the risks involved do not justify the potential benefit
>> (i.e. saving the captive's life).
>>
>>I maintain that the difference between the 2 captives has nothing to
>>do with moral differences between them: they're both equally valuable
>>and equally worthy of consideration for being rescued.  The difference
>>lies in the moral climate inherent in the situation.  The lives of others
>>are considered equally, but separately.

> Your analogy does nothing to simulate the reality of
> pregnancy and impending parturition.  Equating the
> body of a living woman with any nonliving entity
> always falls short of the situation, and generally
> irritates the mothers in the group.

Please don't mistake analogy for equation.  I thought that the analogy,
by including the risk experienced by people in the nearby field, was a
pretty good one.  Please explain to me why it isn't.  I suspect that
your objection will be based on a contention that the fetus is not
*morally* separable from the mother.  In this case, the analogy loses
badly-needed parallelism.

>>> Since Doug has doubtless read responses containing this
>>> precise point not once, but many times, his assertion
>>> boils down to just what I said above.  Stated as an
>>> equation, it looks like this:
>>>
>>> woman = nothing

>>He may have implied this elsewhere, and perhaps he implied it above.
>>Again, I thought the debate was centered on the fetus/infant and I
>>assumed that "factual differences" were much more narrowly applied
>>to the moral status of the f/i.  I agree that a refusal to consider
>>the woman's moral status leads to the above equation.

> This is a key problem here.  Many of us find it highly
> insulting, as well as misleading, to place the entire
> focus of the debate on the fetus.  A very important
> component of the nature of a fetus is the condition it
> causes for a woman.  To try to approach the moral issues
> of abortion in such a way that the woman is ignored or
> made to seem insignificant _is_ misogynic.

I agree.  Emphatically.

>>>>                     He's talking about the existence of a
>>>>"moral difference between killing a newborn infant and killing
>>>>a late-term fetus."  The interesting kernel of this debate is
>>>>the fact that some might conclude that there is no such moral
>>>>distinction, apart from the involvement of other persons.  Perhaps
>>>>you'd be interested in addressing this.

>>> If a full-term fetus is killed in utero, as part of a
>>> medical procedure, there is an _overwhelming_ liklihood
>>> that a woman's life is profoundly at risk at the time.
>>> If you can show documentation from an unbiased source
>>> that full-term fetuses are being killed in utero for
>>> trivial reasons, perhaps you'd have a point.  I suspect
>>> that you have no such documentation, and therefore no point.

>>You're right.  But that wasn't my point.  Note above:
>>"The interesting kernel of this debate..." and following.
>>Based on the responses I have seen, I was wrong about the
>>kernel of the debate.

> This is exciting.  It's possible that some actual
> communication is taking place here!

Surprised?  Sad, but understandable.  "Actual communication" doesn't
happen that often around here.  Shall we continue?

>>                         I'm still curious about what folks
>>think about the inherent moral status of a late-term fetus,

> I don't think personhood occurs until birth, so I don't
> know what to say of the 'moral status' of a late-term fetus.
> I think the late-term fetus has tremendous _importance_,
> in the overwhelming majority of cases, to the woman, her
> loved ones, and her caregivers.

>>and I'm a sucker for a good, interesting discussion of personhood
>>and so forth.  I DO NOT advocate any philosophy or legal
>>strategy that considers a fetus' (or a child's) rights to
>>the exclusion (or underemphasis) of another's.

> Does this mean that you would not favor legislation
> restricting abortion?  Because I maintain that it's
> impossible to give legal rights to a fetus without
> compromising the rights of women.

I am largely undecided on the issue of legislation.  For now, I
oppose it because I believe it diverts attention and effort almost
completely away from the simple pro-life goal of discouraging
abortion.  In other words, I'd like to see elective abortion go away
by becoming unnecessary and undesireable.

As for the consequences of granting rights to fetuses, I suppose
you're right.  Certain "rights" would be compromised.  This sort
of thing happens a lot, doesn't it?  I mean, don't my rights have
to be continuously balanced against the rights of others?  We'd have to
agree on some sort of hierarchy of rights between the fetus and mother.
But we do that every day, don't we?

> [discussion of Doug's misogyny deleted]
>>
>>I've never seen it, but I don't read his posts much.  I've been
>>around long enough to see a lot of pre-emptive strikes, and I've
>>been on the receiving end a couple of times.  Since they tend
>>to discourage meaningful debate, I find them frustrating and
>>annoying.  Since your comment does not fall into this category,
>>I must apologize.  My fault.

> Accepted.
> This was nicely done.  There are few on this forum who
> can apologize gracefully when the situation calls for it.

Thank you.  I wouldn't consider otherwise.  It seems that the mode
of communication on the Net, in which people interact without seeing or
meeting one another, leads people to behave in ways that would be
otherwise unthinkable.  I try to picture the people I "talk" to, and,
oddly enough, I always seem to picture them as rather pleasant folks
(there are some, uh, clear exceptions).  Besides, from a purely
pragmatic standpoint, it's really foolish to foster anger and
resentment, or to insult people, etc.: how then can you ever have a
meaningful discussion?  That's the goal after all, right?

[Long, uncomfortable silence].

Heh.  Sorry, Muriel; I know I'm preaching to the choir.  But maybe
someone else is listening...

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
[e-mail]