From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:06:00 GMT

In article <1il9b7INN6fg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <C0K8Mw.MBz@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>In article <1ifv15INNpco@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
>>Regard) writes:
>>
>>>Because, in this country, you get to use your own body as you see fit, 
>>>based upon your own values. 
>>
>>I don't think this is true at all, Adrienne.  You can't used drugs, sell your
>>body, gamble, drive against traffic, etc, etc.
>
>Oh?  Really?  Well can you cite for us some laws that require you to do with
>your body things that you object to doing with your body that are sensible
>and just laws?

Argh! You just threw away a perfectly good argument, Adrienne! What is this
"sensible and just" crap? Who gets to decide it? Do you expect that an abortion
law that's "sensible and just" to a pro-choicer will necessarily appear so to
a "pro-lifer"? Either come up with solid, consistent reasons why some laws
superficially related to "using your body as you see fit" are "sensible and
just", or slip into the abyss of arbitrariness.

Here, I'll give you an example of how to do it:

	Drug use & prostitution: Many pro-choicers would favor legalization
				 of these

	Gambling and traffic laws: Not specifically related to "body use"

See, it's really not that hard! 

>I mean, sure, we all know that some states would regulate behavior in bedrooms
>between consenting adults, but most of us are sensible enough to recognise
>that this regulation is both futile and undesireable.

This is the obverse of "sensible and just", right? "Futile and undesirable".

>You can't eat peanuts in church, either, according to some dumb law somewhere.

The question is not whether the laws are obsolete, it's whether the laws 
are a) supported by pro-choicers and/or b) constitute violations of Bodily
Autonomy.

>Now the POINT is, do you disagree that we have individual freedoms in this
>country?         
>
>Do you disagree that adult human beings have a right to privacy, grounded in
>our constitution?    

Pro-lifers might grant a right to privacy, but contend that it doesn't extend
to the taking of fetal life.

>Do you disagree that our constitution specifically limits the methods by which
>privacy and individual freedoms can be curtailed or infringed?

Ooooh, thin ice time. Where does the Constitution mention abortion?

>>> And that includes denying the use of that
>>>body to someone else who really is, or merely claims to be, in dire need
>>>of your body for their own purposes.
>>
>>Abandonment of a child is certainly a crime.  Witness the current couple who
>>flew off for a week and left their kids home alone.
>
>Abandonment of a child and giving up a child for adoption would seem to be
>essentially the same things.  What makes one OK and the other not OK, and 
>where do the similarities end?

And abortion is yet a third thing altogether.

>You would agree, would you not that my statement above is perfectly true
>in the context of bodily servitude, would you not?  That, even IF you have
>a spare kidney, you are not compelled by any law of this land to give it up
>to someone who is dying, or thinks they are dying?
>
>You would agree, would you not, that my statement above is perfectly true
>in the context of bodily servitude, in the case of someone who just needs a 
>little of your physical effort (to pick their cotton, say) to keep them
>alive?  
>
>You would agree, would you not, that my statement above is perfectly true
>in the context of bodily servitude in the case where you CAUSED an auto
>accident, your 'victim' requires blood, and that there is no law in this
>land that compels you to give yours (REGARDLESS of how advisable it may be
>for you to do so)?
>
>You would agree, would you not, that my statement above is perfectly true
>in the context of a rape, would you not?
>
>You would even, if you are being honest, agree that my statement above is
>perfectly true with regard to one's own CHILDREN, once they have been 
>surrendered to the state for adoption, wouldn't you?

Much better, Adrienne. THIS is the core of the issue.

[more excellent points, deleted purely for reasons of space conservation]

								- Kevin