home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!mon
- From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
- Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
- Message-ID: <1992Dec30.113401.1001@hemlock.cray.com>
- Lines: 67
- Nntp-Posting-Host: hemlock
- References: <1992Dec29.095118.21147@rotag.mi.org> <1992Dec29.111932.26271@hemlock.cray.com> <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org>
- Date: 30 Dec 92 11:34:01 CST
-
- [Note: this exchange was getting very long, and I've deleted
- much, while attempting to retain context.]
- In article <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
- >In article <1992Dec29.111932.26271@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
-
- >>>
- >>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.
- >
- An induced early labor would fit both in some instances.
- There are natural substances which would accomplish
- induction, but I won't mention them here.
- In most instances, the fetus has better chances if
- parturition is delayed until full-term.
-
- [deletia. time to clarify definitions]
-
- >>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.
- >
- autonomy, n.
-
- 1. The quality or state of being self-governing
- 2. A self-governing state
- 3. Self-directing freedom esp. moral independence
-
- source: Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary
-
- One of the things that animal bodies do is MOVE.
- Inability to move about as one pleases leaves
- little freedom to govern oneself.
-
- [more deletia. Kevin has asked why fetuses should differ
- from newborns in terms of the recognition of autonomy rights.]
-
- >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.
-
- So 'dead' would make no difference either? As long as
- the organism is human? I think membership in society
- goes a long way towards defining the recognition of rights.
-
- [more deletions]
-
- >>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.
- >
- Where does this definition of bodily autonomy come from?
-
- muriel
- standard disclaimer
-
-