From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:21:03 GMT

In article <81933@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan6.040058.8155@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>|that depends very much upon your definition of "force", doesn't it?
>|for example, if another adult did to a woman's body what a fetus does to
>|it, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be considered force and
>|the woman would have the right to remedy the situation. i would say
>|she does as well in the fetus situation.
>
>But who initiated the force.  It certainly wasn't the fetus.

as i said in another post, the problem is the *very* unique situation
where a life begins where there was none before. this does not arise
in any other sphere of conversation.

i agree that the woman (and the man who helped her, of course) are
responsible for the products of their actions. but creating life
is not the same as initiating force against it. the fetus "appears",
and immediately has deleterious effects upon the health of the woman.
that is the "force" to which i am referring, of course only in
theoretical terms.

>|i have a friend who compared a pregnancy to a parasitic infection.
>|i was repulsed at this comparison, and don't share his view, but when
>|i sat down to argue against it, i found it quite difficult to refute.
>|the fetus *is* living off its mother, much as a parasite lives off its host.
>|the only real counter-argument i had related to responsibility of
>|creation of the fetus; in that the analogy fails, but only sometimes.
>|what if the mother had every reason to believe conception was impossible?
>
>|i welcome any arguments you folks out there might have.
>
>Two comments.  While a parasite does cause infection, the fetus does not
>cause pregnancy, it is the result.

it lives of the avails of its host, and is (in the case in question)
unwanted.

>Secondly, a bacterium or virus, is not human, nor will it ever become human.
>This is not true for the fetus.

doesn't matter.

>In my world view, humans have rights that
>bacterium do not enjoy.

ah.. that *is* a valid distinction. 
you are implying a duty of care of one human to another, based upon
responsibility for predicament. i believe Jason was leaning in the
same direction. a good counter-argument. the question then becomes:
must the woman *really* be held responsible for the predicament,
which may not have been of her choosing either?

to help clarify this: if the woman had the technological option of
transfer of the embryo to a mechanical womb, even if this increased
the chance of harm to the embryo, would she be within her rights
to insist upon it? i'm sure this has been proposed many times as
a possible solution to the problem.

>|(P.S. no labels, please -- me wife and i are actually expecting, and
>|i am quite happy about it!!)
>
>Congrats.

same to you.

>BTW my wife is also expecting, me I'm just anxious.

me too. :^)
strange justifying abortion. but that's the nature of theoretical discussion,
i guess.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism