From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:44:42 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32847@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.215527.23123@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
>writes in response to my complaint about the special burden that
>forced pregnancy laws place on women:

>>You seem to object to the view that one's obligations depend in part
>>on one's circumstances.  I don't understand the objection.

>If your forced pregnancy position had an effect that corresponded only
>with behavior, then I would support it.  However, it is quite possible
>to engage in the behavior that you want to regulate, i.e. `hold people
>responsible for' using state resources, and suffer very different
>consequences, not based on behavior but based on gender.

But it's generally true that if people are required to bear the
consequences of their actions those consequences vary wildly in
accordance with things that have nothing to do with behavior.  If Mike
Tyson and I each punch someone in the nose as hard as we can, Mike
will probably find himself in more trouble than I will.  If I punch
Mike Tyson in the nose I probably will find myself in less *legal*
trouble than if I punch my wife's 102-year-old grandmother.  (Quite
possible someone would call the heavier legal penalties in the latter
case an instance of gender and age discrimination.)  If I try to join
the Army in wartime the consequences to me are likely to be very
different than if my 11-year-old son makes the same attempt.  I don't
see anything unjust about such differences.  To deal with consequences
is to deal with reality and reality is not fair in the sense you seem
to want.

>However, the punishment you would
>prescribe for this behavior is grossly unequal.  Among the
>consequences that would fall uniquely on women are the following: (1)
>diminished earnings power, including lost work time and damage to
>workforce progression, (2) higher mortality than early term abortion,
>(3) enhanced risks of serious health damage, and (4) psychological
>trauma of being forced to have your body occupied by an entity that
>you do not wish to have there.

I have no idea why you use the word "punishment".  A punishment is a
burden imposed on someone as a penalty for some wrongful act where it
is specifically intended that the burden be a burden.  In the case of
abortion there need not have been a wrongful act and I don't know of
anyone who objects to making the pregnancy as easy and safe for the
mother as possible as long as the z/e/f is protected.

Your consequences (1), (2) and (3) apply to wanted pregnancies as well
as unwanted, so with respect to those consequences concerns that
prohibiting abortion would make the status of women materially worse
seem to be misplaced.  Your consequence (4) seems to depend largely on
whether the woman accepts the prohibition of abortion as a legitimate
exercise of state authority.  Pro-lifers are often unsympathetic to
this problem because like everyone else they think the people who
disagree with them are wrong and aren't inclined to give much weight
to the psychological effects of holding wrong opinions -- they think
it is the opinion rather than the prohibition of abortion that ought
to be changed.

Of course, at present many women disagree and in a free government the
views that people actually have must be treated as important, so the
pro-life movement has a lot of educating to do.  In America everything
important becomes a legal issue, so the debate over whether or when
abortion should be legal seems an appropriate forum in which to do
some of the educating.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion