From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:51:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.093545.11533@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.042418.4549@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.103815.21024@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec22.174359.23172@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec15.180606.27847@cbnews.cb.att.com> 
>>>>jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I argue for pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation
>>>>> to provide support to the child.  This is independent of the question of
>>>>> personhood.
>>>>
>>>>During most abortions, the child's right to bodily autonomy is 
>>>>violated.  If the child is a person, then you cannot support 
>>>>unrestricted abortion-on-demand using the notion of bodily 
>>>>autonomy. 
>>
>>Yes, the fetus'es (not "child"s) right to bodily autonomy is violated, but the 
>>violation of the fetus is a LESSER violation, in terms of human suffering, 
>>than the alternative 9-month violation of the pregnant woman. So, where we 
>>HAVE to choose between the two, i.e. before the point of viability, it is 
>>valid to choose violation of the fetus'es BA.
>>
>>>Gee, Doug.  When are we going to see some evidence
>>>from you that a fetus is _capable_ of bodily autonomy?
>>
>>Does it need to fill out a form, or what?
>>
>>No, Muriel, any human organism which _could_ function outside of the womb
>>is by definition "capable" of bodily autonomy. This is, in fact, why 
>>viability is such an all-important dividing line.
>>
>Is it "capable" of reaching that state on its own?

Is a woman capable of realizing her bodily autonomy versus a viable fetus 
"on her own"? No, she needs medical assistance in order to do so. Similarly,
a viable fetus needs medical assistance to realize -its- bodily autonomy. It's
the same operation, of course, that allows -both- humans to concurrently 
realize their respective bodily autonomies.

>As long as it's a fetus, it's _not_ "capable" of bodily autonomy.  

What do you think bodily autonomy _is_, Muriel? The word "autonomy", by 
itself, implies freedom from outside interference. The combined form "bodily 
autonomy" would seem to imply freedom from outside interference with one's 
body, would it not? Certainly, it implies nothing about one's ability to 
ASSERT that right in a verbal way -- just because a fetus can't shout "get 
that goddamned scalpel away from me!" from inside the womb doesn't necessarily 
mean it doesn't have any BA rights. Born humans, for example, have BA rights, 
whether they're sleeping, unconscious, in a coma -- it's not much of stretch 
then to say that humans could be considered to have BA rights in the 
non-conscious developmental stage between viability and birth. 

>Which is why viability is such a red herring.

Before viability, the fetus'es BA comes only at the expense of the woman's, 
so it is forfeit, but AFTER viability, the fetus'es BA is essentially 
independent of the woman's, so there is a valid if not compelling case for 
trying to balance the value of its BA against the mother's interests. To 
assert an -automatic- override of the fetus'es BA is to subjugate the whole 
BA concept to some other belief system -- e.g. Feminism, Individualism, 
Utilitarianism, Humanism, Christianity or whatever. I therefore consider it 
somewhat a betrayal of the fundamental principles underlying the Bodily 
Autonomy argument. BA rights, in their purest formulation, apply across-the-
board. If you're going to apply them selectively to one entity, but withhold
them from another, I'd like to hear a justification for the disparate 
treatment.

								- Kevin