From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Anti-Choice is Inconsistent and Misogynistic
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:10:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <BuAGAL.AwD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don
Beaver) writes: 

>First, nothing was said about a right to kill.  "Merely" to remove the
>fetus intact would suffice.  Its right to support would be overridden
>under certain circumstances, not its right to life.  It would pursue
>life as best it could, which wouldn't be very well.  Not much difference
>than salt or blendering, in effect, but there is one, in principle.

For a non-viable fetus, who should pay the difference between the most
cost-effective form of removal and the kinder, gentler means you
prefer?  What should be done in the case when the kinder, gentler
method of non-viable fetus removal poses greater risks to the mother?
This is the mosogyny that pro-choice people are talking about.

>Second, if some link between you and me were causing you to suffer,
>I'd have no problem terminating that link.  But neither my existence 
>nor my link to you is a result of any crime perpetrated on you.

If a father does not want to donate a kidney or blood or tissue to his
child (there's a link for you), no law in this country compels him to
do so.  Why do you want to give rights to a fetus that a child does
not have?  Namely the right to compel the mother to donate her body
for its well-being?
 
>There are no clear analogies to rape, which causes a +new+ link 
>(to a new entity) by virtue of the crime being committed.  We are not 
>talking about a pre-existing link or an externally-arranged link.  
>Thus, even if you want to force the issue to be, "abortion +kills+ the 
>fetus,"  then there still isn't a good analogy.

The analogy is simple: (1) You argue that a /z/e/f/ has a right to
life.  (2) You further argue that this right to life supersedes the
right of the mother to bodily autonomy.  If you believe (1) and (2)
then why should rape make a difference?  Can you name one other legal
circumstance where the actions of a third party (the rapist) causes
rights normally ceded to party 1, the /z/e/f/, to be reassigned to
party 2, the mother?

>Third, I don't have the all-or-nothing analytical fascination 
>that you seem to have over rights.

Personally, I find the position that a /z/e/f/ has a right to life
that supersedes its mother's right to bodily autonomy to be an
all-or-nothing analytical positionm, especially since children have no
such right to use parts of their parents' bodies to preserve their
lives.

>I pay insurance, so I demand hospital service.  I accept the consequences
>of sex with women, and I reject unequal treatment under the law.  I spend
>most of my day with my son, and I teach one hour daily and work at home after
>he goes to bed, in order to fulfill my responsibilities, some of which
>have resulted from sex.  What do you do?

The way you have chosen to discharge your responsibilities is your
business.   Why do you want to deny a woman who is responsible about
her sexuality the right to discharge her responsibilities by choosing
abortion rather than carrying to term?

>Besides, you're still forgetting, +I+ haven't proposed "unzip==>pay",
>I've simply said there's nothing misogynistic about it.  I've also
>said that "pro-life" is not inherently contradictory.

The contradiction arises from wanting to give rights to /z/e/f/s that
children do not have.  The misogyny is by implication: Is it just a
coincidence that the granting of these rights only affects women?  I
think most pro-choice persons do not think it is a coincidence.  A
convincing explanation of why women should be compelled to give birth
when parents are not compelled to use their bodies to save the lives
of their children might weaken the conclusion that misogyny is
involved.  
  
>Virtue has nothing to do with it.  Some people may think so, if they like.
>You can go argue with them.

The rape exception is inherently a contradiction in terms of common
law: Again, naming one other situation that is analogous, i.e. where
the actions of a third party affect the distribution of rights between
two others, would help to mitigate the perception of contradiction.

>Here comes your fascination again.  If you like, do a grep and add "/health"
>where you like.  I don't see a +necessary+ contradiction in assuming
>a fetus is a person, claiming it has a right to life, and measuring
>relative strengths of contradictory rights in various circumstances,
>just as we do with all people.

Legally the fetus is not a person, so assuming that it is must be in
an extralegal sense, but it is also peripheral.  I return to the same
question: Children undoubtedly have a legal right to life, yet their
parents are not compelled to donate bodily resources to maintain their
lives.  Why do you want to contradict this only in the case of
pregnant women?

>You seem to be mixing the attitudes of +some+ pro-lifers with the
>question of whether pro-life can be consistent.

It can't be.  I showed that using your positions, not someone else's.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men