From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:53:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Frank!!!  You're back!  [Happy smile.]  [Frown of concern.]
Does this mean you've got some spare time on your hands?

From article <1k66tbINNcao@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>,
by frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer):
> In article <1993Jan27.000231.8842@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>>From article <1993Jan26.183133.5938@netcom.com>,
>>by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):

> [...]

>>> But in abortion, we're balancing the right of a fetus to live against
>>> the right of a woman to control her own body.

>>In the case of the 2-week-old, we're balancing the right of a neonate
>>to live against the right of a woman to control her own life.  Do you
>>contend that it is self-evident that a woman's right to liberty and
>>the pursuit of happiness are less important than her right to control
>>her own body?  

> A woman's right to control her body is predicated on her right to 
> liberty. Ditto the pursuit of happiness. However, a woman can enjoy both
> without killing her 2-week old, because other acceptable options exist.  The 
> same cannot be said in the case of abortion. 

Killing?  Nah.  She just wants to have the right to control her body,
her life.  Perhaps the parents just don't feel they should have to
feed the greedy little unwanted intruder.

First:  The reasoning used above would compel us to make it legal to
give your kids to the government as soon as you feel they are unacceptably
limiting your rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (especially
if they weren't "wanted" in the first place).  Why?  Because we'd want to
make sure that "other acceptable options exist".  And that seems to be
the only thing holding the 2-week-old's right to life above the parents'
rights to control their own lives.

Second:  "Other acceptable options" do NOT always exist.  What then?
Should we use chloral hydrate?  Cervical dislocation?  Carbon monoxide?

Last:  "...other acceptable options exist."  If you say so.
"The same cannot be said in the case of abortion."  Oh?  Let me try...

Other acceptable options exist in the case of abortion.

There.  I did it.  At least one other option exists: allowing the
pregnancy to continue.  Why is this option not "acceptable"?  Why
can we pry into the parents' lives after the birth of their now-
unwanted child?  Frank, tell me why I should agree with you.  There
is *nothing* in the arguments in question that I find compelling or
self-evident.

> [...]
>>These arguments have everything to do with the right of the government
>>to make laws, but nothing to do with the morality of making the choice
>>to abort.  And they depend completely on the assumption that the e/f
>>can be viewed, legally and morally, as an intruder with NO right to
>>claim support from the mother.

> I think most people would agree that there is more to living a life than 
> staying the right side of the law.  However these arguments depend only 
> on the assumption that *nobody* has a right to claim support from *anybody*, 
> where this involves the intimate use of one's body against one's will. 

I'll be brief.  I reject the assumption that children have no right to
claim support from their parents.  I am sickened by the notion that an
unborn child is a blood-sucking intruder.  I also concede that there is
little to be gained in trying to force people to care for their children
even if we can force them to feed their children).  If our society
considers its children to be unwelcome, uninvited parasites
with no right to "claim [life-giving] support" from their own parents,
then I hope that abortion (legal or not) hastens its demise.

>>In my opinion, your position is not nearly as strong as you'd like
>>me to believe.

> You got something better?

Sure.  Whatever their rights, parents lay down part of their lives
for the sake of their children.  If the government has to force them
to do it, then all is already lost.

>>> If she wants to get rid
>>> of the fetus, she should certainly be allowed to; it is unfortunate
>>> that this results in the death of the fetus.

>>If she wants to get rid of the 3-year-old, she should certainly be
>>allowed to; it is unfortunate that....

> ....this should result in custody of the child going to the state. Yes
> it is.

Especially in, e.g., Somalia, where "the state" does not exist, and the
only barrier to infanticide mentioned in this thread is removed.
Oops.  Did I say "infanticide"?  Heh.  Sorry.  She'll "get rid" of
the 3-year-old by abandoning her.  It is unfortunate that this
results in the death of the 3-year-old.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu