From: updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: NA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:21:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.165448.19042@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> In article <C0LqFE.1yr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan8.212721.22962@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> >|> In article <C0K6zE.1wr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
|> >|> >In article <1993Jan8.155810.14110@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> [deletions]
|> >|> Would you require the woman to await society's decision
|> >|> while her life was in imminent danger?
|> >
|> >No. In most cases time would be sufficient to make a rational determination. In
|> >an emergency situation the doctor and mother could make this determination.  This
|> >presupposes that the two would act in a reasonable way.  There would, of course,
|> >be abuses of this as there are any time human beings make decisions.
|> >
|> [more deletions]
|> >|> I think it's easy to _say_ this, when no rights of your
|> >|> own are at risk.  But how can women approach economic
|> >|> parity without reproductive freedom?  Do you not see how
|> >|> unequal reproductive rights would hamper women in the
|> >|> workplace?
|> >
|> >The reproductive systems of men and women are inherently different and as such
|> >I don't think equality discussions are valid.  I do support family leave and
|> >other laws that allow women to bear and raise children while minimizing the effect
|> >on their economic condition and career advancement.  I also think most men should
|> >devote more of their time and energy to their children.
|> >
|> In other words, you think we should be satisfied with
|> unequal rights, and take whatever crumbs you BigStrong
|> AlphaMaleKnowWhatsBestForWomen want to toss our way?

I think this is an unfair and inflammatory characterazation of what I said.

Society is composed of men and women and I have said before on this
thread I want to help convince society in general to reconsider its position and
eventually recognize rights for the fetus (the reasons for which I have
discussed previously in the context of late term fetal development vs.
newborns).

There are critical thinking women who share some of
my views so please don't let this discussion degenerate into a name calling
match between men and women.

|> >|> >                                                        Since I believe the
|> >|> >fetus should have rights, abortion involves more than control over one
|> >|> >individuals body and therefore the competing rights need to be considered.
|> >|> >
|> >|> The fetus is not an individual in a physical sense.
|> >
|> >I disagree. The original post asked a question directed to those who don't oppose
|> >abortion at any time prior to birth.  It also asked about the fundamental differences
|> >between the fetus/baby before and after birth. I reponded above to a guy who said
|> >that difference was between the mothers options not the fetus/baby. I submit that
|> >since there is no fundamental physical difference the rights of the baby
|> >should extend to the rights of the fetus. 
|> 
|> I have pointed out that the reason for not assigning rights
|> to fetuses is because doing so would reduce the woman to 
|> 'container' status.  There are some fundamental physical
|> differences between fetuses and newborns.  Individuality
|> is only attained at the 'division' that happens at birth.
|> 

The only difference I can think of is that oxygen(I think) and nourishment is provided
through the umbilical chord rather than orally because the environment prevents
it. This doesn't seem to fundamentally affect personhood. As a matter of fact,
after the child leaves the womb but before the umbilical chord is severed  this
distinction is lost even though 'division' has not taken place.

Again, I hope society eventually considers this an issue of competing rights
and finds the right to life of the fetus the controlling right in most cases.


|> >The mother and fetus are as much 
|> >individuals as are siamese twins who share organs and as such require a level
|> >of cooperation to continue existing.
|> >
|> OH.  I thought maybe you were missing this point.
|> The mother has to lose some of her individuality 
|> in order to assign anything like individuality or
|> personhood to the fetus.  Whould you like it if 
|> someone wanted you to give up your individuality
|> by force of law?
|>

Not give up individuality, but give up certain individual rights in the
context of competing rights. 

|> >|>  When
|> >|> you can support the fetus without commandeering the physical
|> >|> resources of another, it may have individual rights.
|> >|>
|> >
|> >The other question in the original post was directed at people who oppose abortion
|> >at some point before birth and how they justify usurping a womans right to choose
|> >at that point. No one's taken this side yet although your above comment indicates
|> >you might consider viability that point. All the arguments I've given so far have
|> >been directed towards the other camp and have considered competing rights
|> >since it seems clear to me that a full term fetus is fundamentally the same as a
|> >newborn.
|> 
|> That's only if you include woman = nothing
|> among your premises.  The statement you just made
|> totally ignores her pain and risk, as well as the
|> use of her resources. Besides, I bet if you met a 
|> born person with a two-chambered heart, you'd think
|> there was quite a difference.

Absolutely not true.  Competing rights presupposes that both parties are
equal to something. As a matter of fact, since you said above you oppose 'assigning
rights' to the fetus, it is you who are saying: the fetus = nothing.

|> 
|> >
|> >If you do oppose abortion at some point before birth I would like to know the
|> >justification for taking away the right to choose. This would open up a whole new
|> >discussion of what constitutes a human being or a person and when they aquire
|> >rights. 
|> >
|> I don't favor any legal restrictions on abortion beyond
|> those that apply to any other minor surgery.  I haven't seen 
|> any evidence that late term abortions are being performed for
|> trivial reasons, and I can't imagine what business the state
|> has in getting involved.

I guess I was wrong about your setting viability as the point of restricting
a womans right to choose so I guess all the previous conversation still
applies.

Part of the reason there are so few late term abortions is that it is quite
difficult to find a willing doctor plus I think there are some restrictions
in various states. But, it doesn't really matter if there's one or a million
if a late term fetus should have no rights.


Mike
Newsgroups: talk.abortion