From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:40:37 CDT

In article <1992Jul30.203923.25625@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.173409.15808@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

[...]
>The late-term fetus and the newborn infant are identical
>entities with respect to their ability to make "moral
>decisions". Hence by your original definition of "autonomy",
>they should have identical rights with respect to bodily
>autonomy.  
>
Why did you delete that definition, Doug?
It had two parts, one which might apply to physical
autonomy, the other clearly in the moral realm. 
I pointed out that neither definition could apply to a
fetus, but that at least some physical freedom is a
possibility for a newborn.

>> Not to mention the ability to
>> move about, which develops very quickly in some newborns.
>
>Late-term fetuses can't move about very much because they're  
>physically restrained by the walls of the uterus. If you 
>physically restrain a newborn infant, does it suddenly
>lose its right to bodily autonomy? 
> 
No, you'd be violating those rights, if you restrained
it to the extent that a fetus is restrained.
It would be a very bad idea.

If you remove the fetus from those 'restraining walls'
it's not a fetus anymore.  The first things it will do are
stretch out, and breathe.  After that it will enjoy _some_
physical autonomy, and will probably resent it very much if
you remove same.

>> A newborn can also make choices _very_ early on about
>> how she will relate to those around her--something a
>> fetus can't do.
>
>Put a newborn infant in an enclosed box, and it won't be able to 
>relate to anyone either. 
>
Do the world a favor, Doug. Don't try this with any
real kids.

>> How can you fit a fetus into any of the meanings of
>> 'autonomy' listed above?
>
>You can't fit a newborn infant into any of the meanings
>of "autonomy" which you originally listed. Now you're just
>pointing to mere physical differences between the newborn 
>infant and the late-term fetus which really aren't significant.
>
Truth is, a newborn does enjoy a surprising degree of physical 
self-determination. The reason you find the differences
insignificant is because you ignore the woman, or refer
to her as a 'mere location'.  My bet: you have very little
real experience with fetuses or infants.  I can't help
wondering what kind of experiences you have with women,
that you find us so insignificant.

[Doug's bizzarre breastfeeding analogy deleted, because it 
does not relate to the question of bodily autonomy, and 
because I'm losing patience.]

>> Does this mean that we won't be hearing the assertion,
>> 'women and fetuses should have the same rights to bodily
>> autonomy' from you again?
>
>I don't believe the right to bodily autonomy should apply 
>with respect to pregnancy. I'm just following the choicer's  
>reasoning to see where it leads. 
>
Is there any case in which you would deny bodily autonomy to 
an adult male, and permit his body to be occupied against
his wishes?

I really hope you don't get to decide what rights I have
with regard to my body, Doug.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion