From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 04:59:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.013226.4712@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1992Dec30.164138.10210@hemlock.cray.com>,
>by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):

[Massive deletia]

>perhaps that's because I haven't given much thought to how one obtains
>membership.  Nor am I convinced that such membership is a prerequisite
>for the acquisition of rights.
>
>> I _have_ seen instances where the fetus was an important focus for
>> family and caregivers, but I think there's a moral
>> difference in an entity that actually lives among us.
>
>If the entity slips into a coma, does this moral difference persist?
>Let's assume that the coma is reversible.  In this situation, I
>typically think of people in a predicament such as that depicted in
>the film _Awakenings_.
>
In the situation you describe, a reversable coma, the comatose person
is certainly still a person. But even in this case, the mother is
considered to have priority over the fetus. Case in point, the oft
cited case of the comatose woman who was given an abortion in an
effort to save her life.
Likewise, if the coma is irreversible, there is precidence for
maintaining the pregnant woman on life support much longer then would
otherwise be the case. The papers in the recent past have been filled
with the story of the woman killed in a car accident whose body was
maintained artificially until such time as it was possible to remove
the fetus with a resonable chance of survival. The woman was then
disconnected and allowed to "officially" die.
I think the key in these cases is that the peopel invovled were given
the opportunity to make their own choices based on their own
situations. 

>If the entity is postpartum, but retains complete dependence upon others,
>and is incapable of normal interactions with others, is "it" a member of
>society?
>
By definition, any human who is post partum is a member of society.
But is this utter and complete dependence on others, and this
inability to interact a permanent trait? If so, I suspect you are
describing an infant so defective as to have a limited chance of
survival in any case.

[deletions]

>> I think there's a lot that can be done here, from ensuring
>> the availability of prenatal care and adequate food for
>> pregnant women, to reinstating the Title X funding that
>> allowed low-income, uninsured women to obtain tubal ligations.
>> (Removed about twelve years ago with the advent of the Reagan 
>> administration.)
>
>And that's just a start.
>
>I think this is the obvious common ground shared by people
>who are not pro-abortion (I'm using this term precisely).  IMHO, one gets
>to this rarely-visited arena by recognizing that the problem of unwanted
>pregnancy is central, with or without abortion.
>
And those of us who oppose legialtive limits thank you (or at least
this one does) for seeing the difference.
I support abortion rights. I alswould prefer never to see or hear of
another abortion being performed.
There will always be abortions, yes, but the way to reduce their
number is to provide other options acceptable to the individuals
involved. Education about contraception. Adequate care and nutrition.
Development of cheaper, safer methods of contraception. All of these
are necessary. Legislation provides no benifits. It's been tried. I'd
prefer to see us move in positive efforts to reduce the *need* for
abortion, rather then returning to the bad old days.

>> Not in exactly the same way.  The pivotal issue is that
>> legislation in this area would affect bodily autonomy rights
>> that are generally not compromised by others in our society.
>
>You have stated that you do not believe that fetuses are persons.
>If they are, does the statement above still apply?  In other words,
>do bodily autonomy rights supersede other rights such as the right
>to life (when those rights are in apparent conflict)?  Is it true that 
>bodily autonomy rights are "generally not compromised by others in
>our society"?  It seems to me that they are routinely *limited* in
>situations where they appear to infringe on the rights of others or
>certain state interests ([gulp] -- I'm no legal expert, but I'm
>thinking of laws dealing with prostitution, drug use, sale of one's
>body parts).
>
Well... Personally, I have no problem with legalized prostitution. Nor
do I care if peopel choose to use drugs, subject to the same sort of
restrictions that apply to alcohol. What a person chooses to do to
their own body in their own home in the name of recreation is no
concern of mine, so long as they don't harm other people. And if/when
they do, that is covered very clearly by laws about harming other
people, regardless of the legal status of the recreation they chose.

>It seems to me that we have 3 questions here:
>	1. Is the fetus morally distinct from the neonate?  If so,
>	   why?  If not, why not?
I would say yes, it is. The reasoning is, at least in part, contingent
on the answer to #2.

>	2. Are fetuses persons?  Are neonates persons?  Why or why not?
I have never seen any real proof that a fetus is a person. This entire
question hinges on personal belifs, and I doubt if anybody will ever
provide anything that can be considered conclusive proof.
I think that a neonate is a person, by any definition I've ever heard.

>	3. If a fetus is a person, is her/his right to life
>	   rendered irrelevant by the mother's right to bodily autonomy?
>	   Is abortion really the legal equivalent of refusing to
>	   give desperately-needed plasma to your kid?
>
I think it is, yes. In both cases, you are excercising your right to
control your body and the uses it is put to. *IF* the fetus was proven
to be a person, it would still have no more right to use your (generic
your, I realise you're not personally ever going to get pregnant :) )
bodily resources then a born child.

>Further, it seems to me that all these questions are interesting and
>important, and that reasonable people may differ in their opinions without
>any of them being guilty of misogyny, hatred, fascism, crimes against the
>Motherland, advocacy of infanticide, or even stupidity.
>
Certainly, but I think you will admit that even resonable people may
be incited to electronic mayhem by the <insert your list here> actions
of unresonable people.
I'm have no doubt there are some that place me in with the later group
of unresonables, but such is life. :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion