From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:06:23 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Oct15.043831.19589@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Bw457A.ELq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> 
>tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>
>> However, bodily autonomy - despite its lack of inherent significance - 
>> *is* used as a principal for making laws, and generally establishing
>> what is and is not acceptable behaviour in our society.
>
>So why doesn't the fetus possess the right to bodily autonomy?

Because the people and government of our countries have chosen not to
give it such rights.  This for many complex reasons

>The fetus's body gets ripped to pieces during most abortions.

True - and it shouldn't.  And granting it bodily autonomy would go a long
way to stopping such slaughter.

But it wouldn't stop abortion - that is termination of pregnancy.

That is my point, merely giving the foetus *equal* rights to the woman
won't work.  The foetus needs extra rights - over those of the woman.

>The "famous violinist" scenario is a strong argument for allowing
>abortion in the case of rape/incest, but not for any other circumstance.  

The "famous violinist" scenario is a waste of breath in my view, since I
reject that its premisses are analagous to those in the abortion argument.

However, if I accept the analogy then I don't see why it can't apply
to any abortion in which the pregnancy was the result of intercourse
where the woman did not want to conceive - even if she knew there
was a high chance of conceiving.

If I know that there is a 90% chance of being robbed walking through a bad
part of town, does that excuse the robbers who subsequently attack me?

>> Personally I think that the foetus' demands on the mother *are* 
>> reasonable.  But I must concede that I am treating the human foetus 
>> as a priveleged class.

>Your argument cuts both ways.  If you allow for unrestricted abortion, 
>you would be treating some human beings as an underprivileged class, 
>subject to arbitrary termination. You would be discriminating against
>fetuses. 

True if you equate abortion to termination of the foetus.
But abortion is termination of the pregnancy.  As long as the death of the
foetus is an unavoidable secondary effect of detaching it and
removing it, then the foetus is not being treated differently from
anyone else who attached themself to the woman.


>> After all, rapist don't get to demand the use of a woman's body.
>> Nor do "famous violinists".
>> Nor do any other persons - except foetuses if an anti-abortion law was 
>> made.  

>Rape is an immoral act.  So is forcing somebody to be hooked up to
>a famous violinist.

And so too - it could be argued - is the attachment by a foetus of itself to
an unconsenting woman.

>A couple who engage in consensual sexual intercourse face the
>consequence of conceiving a child.  Nobody commits an immoral act
>which forces that couple to conceive a child.

It can be argued that the foetus dos indeed commit that immoral act.

And even if the foetus is not acting immorally - after all it is no more 
culpable than a child - still it is attached without consent.

It is not difficult to consider the violinist to be an innocent victim,
as much as the person to whom they are attached.  In this scenario it is
the mad surgeon who bolts the two together is being immoral.

Detachment (by mother or the person in the violinist scenario) is not
an act of retribution.  Merely an act of choosing what to do with one's
own property - and special property at that, the body.

>> I *have* to acknowledge that I am discriminating *against* women 
>> *for* foetuses.

>If you allow for unrestricted abortion, you would be discriminating
>against fetuses.  

Not so.  I would be treating foetuses like everyone else.

*NOONE* would get to attach to someone without the latter's permission.

>> In order for a foetus to be protected in the womb, it has to be treated
>> differently from a rapist, or any other invader of the woman's body.  It 
>> has to have special treatment.  It has to be treated differently from every 
>> other "person".

>Every other person was once a fetus.

Ah, now that's an interesting point.

It could certainly be argued that while a foetus require special treatment
while a foetus, it would lose that status once born.

Since, as you say, everyone was once in that privileged case, then there
is no discrimination between persons per se.  Only between persons
at different stages.

Well done son, I like that :-)

tommy
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41160 talk.politics.misc:50093 alt.sex:32225 alt.rush-limbaugh:6778 alt.politics.elections:15494 alt.politics.clinton:8921 alt.politics.bush:8050