From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Hope springs eternal (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:39:07 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

brian>> = frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
brian>------------------------------------------------------------------------
brian>me> Women using birth control have consented to the _risk_ of pregnancy,
brian>me> often along with other medical risks.   That is clearly a choice, and
brian>me> it's clearly the woman's, and/or possibly her partner's, choice.  When
brian>me> these risks pay off, who would you say is to blame? 
brian>me> [...]
brian>me> Why do you feel society _owes_ you a second choice?
brian>me> [...]
brian>me> An analogy:  I smoke of my own free choosing.  If I then get lung
brian>me> cancer, (god forbid) it's not unreasonable to say that I consented to
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
brian>me> that risk of my own free choosing.   If killing somebody else would
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
brian>me> save me (fantasy) why would that be justified?
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
brian>
brian>This type of argument is hopeless.  

An argument is only hopeless if people can refute it, 
if they do not understand it, or if they will not listen to it.

Which do you say is the case here?

Extra marks and credibility will be given for those who answer the original 
question (the one with the ^ above) before attempting the second question :-)

[...]

brian>  I drive a car on my own free choosing.  I then get in a car accident.
brian>  It's not unreasonable to say that I freely consented to that risk.
brian>  I'm refused access to medical help, because 
brian>  society doesn't owe me a 2nd chance ?!

[...]

If that would kill someone, or deny their bodily autonomy, then
you WOULD be refused "medical help".  That's the status quo, Brian.  It's
nothing new.  I don't have to give you MY blood for example.  If noone else 
cares to either, then tough shit, I guess you die.  Bummer, huh?   That's 
bodily autonomy for you, though.

All that I am asking is: Is that how it should be?  If I was your father 
should I give you blood? If I was your father, AND you were 2 years old,  
AND I did not fasten your seat belt AND it was me who crashed the car because 
I was drunk AND I was holding you out of the window at the time, should I THEN 
have any legal duty to give you blood?  Not?  Why the hell not?  The current 
position, in many countries, is indeed "not" (so far as I am aware, anyhow).  
But am I not denying you "medical help" by my refusal to give blood for 
another human being, my very own child in this case, the child that I alone 
recklessly endangered by driving drunk in a car?    If there is an outside
chance that I will die due to injuries received in the crash (self-inflicted,
essentially), compounded by my giving blood to you, should _this_ negate my 
responsibility?

This is the position of the fetus and its parents, as far as I can see, 
except that only the mother is in any position to "donate" - life itself,
in this case.

You know, Brian, it strikes me that if an abortion was always 100%
fatal for the mother, or for that matter the father, or equally a
visitor at Disneyworld - then we would be having this discussion 
about newborn babies, would we not?  How long, do you figure, before
people would accept the idea of killing a newborn in _those_ circumstances?

I'd give it three generations, myself.  At first people would laugh at
the crazies who suggested it, but rest assured that in short order we 
would have a new word for "newborn baby".  "Newbie" perhaps.  And soon 
"newbie" would be the politically correct usage.  "It's only a newbie, 
it can't even think" people would say.  The Ron Benses of this world would 
come forward and tell you that "newbies ain't real".  Larry Margolis would 
tell newbie jokes.  The Adrienne Regards of this world would tell you that
what people get up to in the bedroom, or the nursery, was nobody's
damn business but their own.   And people would soon realise the nuisance
factor of newborn babies, and would console themselves with the notion that
"a man and woman should not be _forced_ to raise newbies that they did
not _want_ to have, and everyone knows that newbies are only _potentially_ 
real people."

Sure, there would be opposition to terminating newbies (the word kill having 
long since vanished from the politically correct dictionaries).   There would 
indeed be opposition, but they would just be religous fundamentalists who just 
wanted to punish men and women for having sex, wouldn't they?  And who in 
that time would listen to a crazy person who said that a NEWBIE was worth as 
much as a REAL person?  Only the fundies, huh?.   It's rather easy to 
dehumanise ANYONE when the crowd is sufficiently motivated, wouldn't you say?  

Yes indeed.  Of course there is another possibility, and that is that the
species will evolve so that in 2 or 3 thousand years a fetus will carry 
sidearms and anti-personnel mines.  Personally I doubt it.  But _that_ might 
change the position, I guess, if dilation were to reveal a fetus armed with 
a .44 magnum, huh?  

"That's _Mr._ Fetus to you, bub.  Call off the D&C, or I'll blow your fucking
head off.  Mom, I'm REAL DISAPPOINTED in you, and we'll talk about this
LATER.  Call me a cab, I'm out of here.".  Survival of the fetust, and
all that :-)

Unfortunately for it, the fetus is not thus equipped, and unlikely ever to
be so (evolution notwithstanding :-)).  
 
(and note above how even I am now forced to dehumanise "it", 
 when plainly I am one who believes that "it" is a human life worthy of dignity 
 and respect? But the word for that has been stolen, because your friends have 
 plundered the English language.)

brian>What you need to establish is: 
brian>o that an embryo actually is "somebody else",  or that an embryo 
brian>  actually deserves rights.
brian>o that embryo rights supercede bodily autonomy rights.
brian>
brian>-Brian

I was busy on the second bullet point when you so rudely interrupted me :-)

Anyway, Brian, thanks for the tip, but it seems that every time I try to 
establish either, I get told that my arguments are hopeless.   [ Boy, 
good chance for an easy ad hominem _there_, huh?  takers? ] 

It's possible that the reason that I get told that my arguments are hopeless 
[can you resist twice? :-) ], is because if _enough_ people _want_ to dehumanise 
someone, that they may be killed, then they surely will.  Where human rights 
are concerned, calm debate is a poor weapon against self-interest. 

Well hey, at least _this_ post of yours to which I respond now appears
to contain no ad hominem, which is nice to see...

--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'