NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53614

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 3.7 KB | 92 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: 81
Nntp-Posting-Host: hemlock
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:41:38 CST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <[e-mail]>,
>by [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson):
>
>> 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?
>
It's all of the above, and then some.  I don't think a
fetus generally interacts with others in a way that
would make it a member of society.  I _have_ seen
instances where the fetus was an important focus for
family and caregivers, but I think there's a moral
difference in an entity that actually lives among us.
Can you interact with a fetus without treating in some
way with a pregnant woman?  Suppose you want to express
kindness and love towards a fetus.  Any way to leave
the woman out of that?

[deletions]

>> 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?
>
Sure. Why not?
[more deletions]
>> 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.
>
I think there's a lot that can be done here, from ensuring
the availability of prenatal care and adequate food for
pregnant women, to reinstating the Title X funding that
allowed low-income, uninsured women to obtain tubal ligations.
(Removed about twelve years ago with the advent of the Reagan
administration.)

>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?
>
Not in exactly the same way.  The pivotal issue is that
legislation in this area would affect bodily autonomy rights
that are generally not compromised by others in our society.
If you bring up other examples of such laws (ie conscription),
I'd probably be against those, too.

muriel
standard disclaimer