From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:27:08 GMT

In <1992Jul22.014836.6377@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.215735.15272@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> You're presupposing that a "right not to be pregnant" exists. I'm asking
>>> you to offer a rational justification for that claim. 

>> Bodily autonomy.  The same right which prevents me from (for instance)
>> justifiably walking over and crazy gluing my hand onto your face.  She has
>> the right to remove any unwanted organism or object from her body (if she has
>> the means to do so, that is), or even to terminate her own life if that is
>> what she wishes.

>But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 

It does - as long as it doesn't violate someone else's.

>In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
>of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. I think  
>it's reasonable to assume that the alleged right to bodily autonomy 
>must include the right not to be killed though dismemberment.  

Sure - as long as it is possible to detach it from the host woman by other
means.  Otherwise, tough kabookies, kid.

>Let's explore the concept of bodily autonomy for a moment, using your 
>example about "crazy gluing my hand onto your face". Suppose that you 
>and I were in a lifeboat, and I pushed you overboard. Does my right to 
>bodily autonomy include the right to consciously refuse your attempts 
>to "crazy glue" your hand onto my face" if that were the only means of 
>saving yourself from drowning?

Sure, you certainly have the right to *try*.  Of course, if you had really
pushed me overboard, in all likelihood I would try anything to save myself,
regardless of its consequences to you.

>Or what if you tried to grab hold of my arm -- would I have the right
>to remove your hand from my arm and let you drown, even if I had pushed
>you overboard? 

Sure.  Why shouldn't you?

>> The "right not to be pregnant" is a form of this right.  She has the right 
>> to remove a fetus from her body if that is what she wishes.  It is (I think)
>> desirable that the fetus not be killed, if possible (i.e., after the point
>> of viability), in the procedure, but if this cannot be avoided, that's too 
>> bad.

>It's not good enough to say "that's too bad". I think you know that. 

Why not?

>If the fetus enjoys the right to bodily autonomy, then it cannot be
>killed by others.

As long as it is not violating THEIR bodily autonomy.

>		   Even if you can show that the right to bodily 
>autonomy should apply in the hypothetical lifeboat scenario above,  
>the existence of the fetus' right to bodily autonomy would imply 
>that the vast majority of abortions cannot be justified. 

Why?

>If the fetus does not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy, then you 
>must distinguish between the fetus and the mother if you are to 
>deny rights to the fetus. But in doing so, you may wind up denying
>rights to other persons, such as infants or those persons in a coma.  

So?  I can't say that the "infants and comatose people" arguments have ever
swayed me much.  (And at any rate, I'll cross the "MAY end up denying"
bridge when and if I get to it.)

>> She does not have the de facto *responsibility* to support the fetus'
>> existence (unless, perhaps, she has previously voluntarily and explicitly
>> undertaken that responsibility).

>And if she decides to get pregnant, but later circumstances cause her
>to change her mind and seek an abortion, does she have any responsibility
>towards the fetus?  

Depends on the circumstances.  The only one I can think of offhand where she
could IMO reasonably abrogate her responsibility would be a threat to her
own life, though.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

7/8/81: Jerry Falwell suggests that Sandra Day O'Connor's opposition to
	abortion might not be sufficiently rabid to please him.  Responds
	Sen. Barry Goldwater, "I think every good Christian ought to kick 
	Falwell right in the ass."  O'Connor is confirmed by the Senate, 99-0.
			- from _The_Clothes_Have_No_Emperor_ by Paul Slansky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion