From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:47:16 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan06.053233.39629@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan6.024236.23896@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan02.045752.4968@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>First you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
>>>interference."  Then, in the article I quoted, you attempted to restrict
>>>"interference" to detrimental effects.
>>
>>Yes. Do you wish to argue that "interference" doesn't carry a negative
>>connotation?
>
>[Nobody interfere now; let's let Kevin figure it out for himself.]
>
>>>Interference is interference.
>>
>>Enlightening.
>
>I forgot that you need more hand-holding than most.  I'll spell it out.
>
>When you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
>interference", that was an acceptable definition of autonomy.  

OK.

>When you then
>attempted to restrict "interference" to detrimental effects, you no longer
>had an acceptable definition.  

Huh? Are you talking about the definition of "autonomy", or the definition
of "interference" now? When I used the word "interference" in my definition
of "autonomy", I did it with the reasonable expectation that people knew
what "interference" meant. Apparently they didn't. So I clarified the
meaning of "interference". I have in no way abandoned or modified the wording
of my definition of "autonomy" -- I've only clarified one of the key terms
therein for the benefit of the audience.

>Autonomy refers to independence; 

Not my preferred definition. Too vague.

>freedom from *any* outside interference, whether beneficial or detrimental.

Interference, by definition, denotes detrimental intervention. How many times
must I point this out? Given that definition, your definition of "autonomy"
makes no sense ("freedom from any detrimental intervention, whether 
beneficial or detrimental").

>Giving a life-saving transfusion to someone who doesn't want one is a
>violation of their bodily autonomy, even though the effect is beneficial.

It's not beneficial if they don't CONSIDER it beneficial. There are more
levels of "beneficiality" than just basic life-preservation, Larry. For some,
"beneficiality" is conditioned by a religious outlook. It is up to the 
recipient/victim of an invasive medical procedure or the experiencer of an
internal biological condition to decide whether it's "beneficial" or not. 
Pro-CHOICE, remember? In the case of a mentally-competent adult, I would 
say that any invasive medical procedure, or any internal biological condition 
which is reasonably felt to be "detrimental", is to be considered a violation 
of Bodily Autonomy. But the same doesn't apply to "beneficial" invasions.
Someone who takes recreational drugs or a woman who has consensual sex does 
NOT have their Bodily Autonomy violated, because, FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW,
the drug or the penis does not "interfere" with their body, rather, it is 
considered "beneficial", albeit in a hedonistic kind of way.

You didn't answer my question about whether "interference" had a negative
connotation, Larry. If it does, then of course it is perfectly reasonable 
to assume that it refers only to detrimental effects. Please answer the 
question.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion