From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Right to Live vs. Right to Support (was Re: A question for Welch 
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:30:10 GMT

In article <92101.124208ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
     ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:

> [.. deletions ..]
> Do you feel that women who abuse drugs do not have to quit while
> pregnant?

If the drugs pass into the fetus, then in principle, it is the
same thing as forcing a born child to take drugs. I am not certain 
what the law should be, but I believe that no law should penalize
the mother for unwittingly harming the fetus, just as no
law should penalize a mother for unwittingly harming their born 
children. In practice, I can't see how any law could help
the mother or the fetus by preventing or punishing the mother 
for using drugs during pregnancy. 

(I take it that all these questions relate to the principles or
the law involved, not whether the woman should do these things). 

> Do you feel that women do not need to adequately feed or care for
> their bodies during pregnancy?

The law should not force women to feed or care for their bodies
during pregnancy. If they do not care for their bodies during
pregnancy, then they are not supporting the fetus to the fullest
extent possible. In principle, that is equivalent to not supporting 
their children to the fullest extent possible -- not feeding them
the right foods, or not giving them the best education. We shouldn't 
penalize people for making these kind of mistakes. 

> Do you feel that women do not need to avoid strenuous or
> dangerous (such as sky diving) activities while pregnant?

The law should not force them to avoid activities which may
endanger their lives. If they die accidently, then generally
speaking, the fetus will die from a lack of support, it will not 
be killed by another person. 

> Do you feel that women do not need to avoid being exposed to
> toxic substances while pregnant?

Women need to avoid being exposed to toxic substances while
they are pregnant if they wish to ensure the health of the
fetus, but the law should not force them to do so.

> Do you feel that women do not need to obtain medical advice
> and prenatal care?

Women need to obtain medical care, but the law should not force them
to do so. But, I believe that in principle, the fetus should have
a right to receive medical care from other people without interference,
as should the mother. However, it's not realistic to put that principle 
into practice without interfering with the mother's right to control her
own body, assuming that the fetus is still inside her body.

> All of the above require the woman to take active measures to
> ensure the survival and good health of the developing fetus.
>
> Some of the requirements may infringe on the woman's professional
> life and/or personal enjoyment.

They are requirements which she imposes on herself voluntarily.

> The prolife position as stated by Mr. Welch and several others is
> that the fetus is a child and therefore entitled to the rights of
> existing children. If this premise is true then the existing 
> child should have the same rights as that of a fetus, ie. to
> impose his survival on the parent.

I can't speak for Mr. Welch or the pro-life position, but you must
understand that not all principles have to be put into practice.  
I think the fetus should have the same rights as a child, but I
don't necessarily agree that we should pass laws to support all
of the fetus' rights. I am undecided. But, it is clear to me
that the fetus' right not to be killed and its right to receive adequate
support to live are two fundamentally different rights. You appear to 
have merged these two rights together, and have given them equal 
consideration. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that these
two rights should be given the same footing in principle.

I understand that one of the reasons that many people fear
anti-abortion legislation is because it may lead to measures
which attempt to insure the health of the fetus at the expense
of the mother's rights. I believe that most anti-abortion legislation
is designed to insure the fetus' right not to be killed, it is
not designed to insure the fetus' right to receive adequate
support. I suppose there are some people who wish to use anti-abortion
legislation as a stepping stone for controlling the behavior of
pregnant women; I am not one of them. I simply believe that killing
an innocent life is wrong. 

> Then the flaws are fundamental within the prolife position that
> the fetus has a right to survival at the expense of the mother's
> bodily autonomy because the fetus is equal to a living child.

Again, you appear to be merging two rights: the right not to be
killed (or the right to live), and the right to receive adequate 
support to live. 

>> You missed the point. If the child did need to be physically
>> connected to the father to live, and assuming that the father
>> was not connected to the child, then the child would die if the
>> father decided to take no action. Only through active steps
>> could the father save the child's life. The father cannot
>> murder the child by taking no action.

> Then you oppose any of the current measures taken against
> pregnant women who do not follow medical advice to ensure the
> safe survival of the fetus?  

In practice, yes. 

> Under your theory women arrested and
> charged for a variety of offenses ranging from illegal drug use
> to failure to follow medical advice, should not have been because
> all they failed to do was take active steps to prevent the death
> or damage to the fetus.

In practice, yes. 

>> During pregnancy, the situation is the *exact opposite*. If the
>> mother takes no action, then the child will be born and it will
>> live.

> This is wrong.  A pregnant woman must take active steps if she
> wishes to ensure that the fetus will develop normally and in good
> health.

The fetus may die from insufficient care, but she hasn't taken
active steps to kill the fetus. 

>> If the mother takes active steps to terminate the pregnancy,
>> then the fetus will die. Therefore the hypothetical scenario
>> given above is not analogous to pregnancy because the child
>> would die if the father took NO action, but the fetus would die
>> if the mother DID take action. Killing can only be accomplished
>> through active means. Abortion is an active means.

> If your position is that women are not required to actively
> ensure a safe and healthy pregnancy I will agree with you.
> However if your position is that she is responsible to ensure
> viability, by taking the steps necessary, then your argument is
> not valid and the scenario still stands.

I guess you need a new scenario, one in which the father has to kill the
child in order to relieve his physical obligation. How about a scenario
in which men could get pregnant? 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion