NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53465

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 7.2 KB | 164 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:57:36 GMT
Lines: 153

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] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>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.

Well, maybe "medical assistance" was too narrow a term to use. Try
"biological intervention".

>>                                                             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 far as I know, the procedures which both

    A) Assert the woman's BA prior to the "natural" way of regaining it,
       i.e. birth,

        and

    B) Maximize the survival chances of both patients

all involve some sort of "operation". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

>>>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'.

"Interference" refers exclusively to _detrimental_ effects, Muriel. The fetus
is free from deliberate "interference" as long as no-one tries to abort it.

>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.

For a pre-viable fetus, I am in absolute agreement. But, after the point of
viability, there are ways to separate the two entities WITHOUT seriously
violating the BA rights of EITHER.

>>>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?

Because motility is not a prerequisite for bodily autonomy.

>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.

I find this connection between motility and autonomy rather bizarre.

>>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?

The bag does not compromise my bodily autonomy, Muriel, it only compromises
my PHYSICAL autonomy, and whatever depends on that (it might be little hard to
socialize or earn a living in such a bag, for instance). Even in the bag, my
body continues to function, biologically, essentially the same as if I wasn't
in the bag. You have not interfered with my bodily functions. I still have
bodily autonomy.

>>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,

As I speculated, you seem to have subjugated your BA argument to some other
belief system -- something which gives emphasis to "membership in society".
All that matters to pure Bodily Autonomy is whether the organism is human
or not -- "membership in society" is seen as a mundane, bureaucratic
classification.

>nor is its viability a proven element until it is outside
>a woman and breathing.

ALL of the risks to the mother AND to the fetus are not, strictly speaking,
"provable elements" until after the fact, including the "endangerment" you
mention in your next sentence. I'm not sure why you think viability is
exceptional in this regard.

>Assigning any rights at all to
>a fetus will ultimately endanger the lives of women, no
>matter how carefully the exceptions are worded.

If the fetus has value, as many if not most people believe, then as long as
the increased risk to the woman is minimal, in comparison to the risk to the
fetus, there is at least a preliminary justification for mandating and/or
proscribing certain abortion METHODS after the point of viability.

>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'.

See above. "Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.

>There is _no_ sense of the word 'autonomy' that I can see applying
>to a fetus in utero.

BODILY autonomy. The right to not have one's biological functions affected
to one's detriment, by the deliberate actions of another.

                                - Kevin