From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:52:04 CDT

In article <1992Apr8.215255.24044@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>No, I've stated that no human should be forced to support another against
>their will. They should not, however, have the right to kill another human,
>except in self-defense.  
>
Given our current level of technology, forbidding the deliberate
killing of a fetus would raise the cost of getting unpregnant
to a level that very few women could afford, all because your
fastidiousness is less offended by letting a fetus die slowly.

The net result of passing a law based on your system would be to 
drive the cost of the procedure well beyond the range of most.
Legislation based on your standards would drastically reduce
the number of legal abortions performed. Is it possible that 
such a result would not be out of keeping with your agenda?

Could it be that splitting hairs over method, when the end result
for the first-tri fetus will be exactly the same regardless of the
method employed, is simply an elaborate rationalization designed
to grant a woman her autonomy in principle, while effectively
denying her a choice in practice?

[massive deletions]
>
>A fetus is a human life, and no other human can place a value on its
>existence. Give me your reasoning why the fetus should not be granted 
>rights, and which is NOT based upon a subjective judgement of the 
>relative value of human life. 
>
You are the one who wishes to change the staus quo. Even when
abortion was illegal, 'fetal rights' did not exist.
Perhaps subjective judgements of the relative value of human
life have provided the rationale for many laws. The law allows 
those who wish to do so to go on eating meat, even though doing
so contributes to the world hunger problem by using more of
the earth's arable land to feed fewer people.

[deletions]
>
>It does not generally allow for vacuum suction, or saline injection, 
>since these methods generally kill the fetus before it would die from 
>a lack of support. 
>
>If medical science advanced to the point where the fetus could be
>transferred intact from one human to another without killing it, 
>then my approach would allow for that action. 
>
And you have no problem with removing the rights of born women
in the meantime?

[discussion of allowable abortions and definition of bodily 
  autonomy deleted]
>I support the right to terminate the attachment of any organism,
>but not the right to kill a human organism, if it does not threaten
>a person's immediate existence.  
>
>Does bodily autonomy only relate to the concept of physical attachment, 
>or does it include other types of attachment as well? What rights 
>does a person have when another human organism attaches to them
>in a non-physical manner (like for example, a financial attachment)?
>
Just physical. Other types of attatchment may be covered other types 
of autonomy, or not.

[more deletions]
>
>The value of a human does not depend on their physical attachment
>to anything. 

I don't believe in the 'anythingness' of a woman.
(That word coined in honor of Dan King)

>              They are human lives, and are worthy of existence.
>Is a human life any less worthy because it is attached to a
>respirator? 

I don't think worthiness is an issue. There's no fundamental
right to be kept alive in that way. If there are two individuals
in need and only one respirator available, a decision has to be
made.

>             Is it less worthy because it is attached to another human? 

Here again, I don't think 'worthy' is the basis for decision.
I don't think anyone should take away a woman's right to self
determination, even if a fetus dies in the process.
>
>>> A human can only judge its own existence, not the existence of others. 
>> You really don't address the woman much in this diatribe. 
>Do you have any objection to the premise that no human can judge
>the value of another human's existence? 
>
Sure, one counterexample should be sufficient. Take triage.

>If she commits suicide, then she has denied support to the fetus, she
>has not denied the fetus the right to exist. She should not be allowed to 
>kill the fetus, or to prevent others from helping the fetus, if she commits 
>suicide. She should not be allowed to kill herself in such a manner that 
>directly causes the death of the fetus, 

Do you have any problem with the premise, 'a pregnant woman should
have the same rights as other born human beings'?

You still have not answered the question from Cathi Cook about what 
equivalent burdens you would impose on the male who impregnates
a woman, even though your agenda effectively imposes a physical
burded on women only. It is interesting that you deleted the portion
of my posting in which I requested that she repost an old article of
hers addressing that issue. When she does, I hope you think about
it carefully.

muriel
standard disclaimer