From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:13:10 GMT

In article <C0BJBH.45q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec29.111932.26271@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec29.095118.21147@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec28.093545.11533@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec25.042418.4549@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>[long debate deleted]
>
>>>A fetus is not a member of society until it is born, 
>
>>As I speculated, you seem to have subjugated your BA argument to some other
>>belief system -- something which gives emphasis to "membership in society".
>>All that matters to pure Bodily Autonomy is whether the organism is human
>>or not -- "membership in society" is seen as a mundane, bureaucratic 
>>classification.
>
>Oh, so "society" is irrelevant, but if it's *human* then there you go, it
>has a right to bodily autonomy.  So, other animals don't have any such rights?

Are you talking to me, Robert? I'm not the one restricting Bodily Autonomy 
rights to only "members of society"...

>>See above. "Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
>>of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
>
>What if those necessary beneficial effects are removed? (which is what the
>pro-removals are arguing)  

This is exactly my point. I am one of those "pro-removals" to which you refer.

>>>There is _no_ sense of the word 'autonomy' that I can see applying
>>>to a fetus in utero.  
>
>>BODILY autonomy. The right to not have one's biological functions affected
>>to one's detriment, by the deliberate actions of another.
>
>Well, I hate to make this argument (because I'm pro-abortion, not pro-removal),
>but the pro-removals would say that abortion is not a deliberate detriment to
>the fetus, the fetus dies as a side effect.

You're preaching to the choir.

>According to the dictionary:
>
>autonomy:  1. The condition or quality of being autonomous; especially, the
>power or right of self-government.  2. A self-governing community or group.
>3. Self-determination.
>
>autonomous:  1. Independent; self-governing.  2. (biology) Independent.
>
> [...]
>
>A fetus is *not* independent; it requires the processed resources of 
>the mother.  

Wrong. A viable fetus does not need the processed resources "of the mother"
specifically -- it can survive off of processed resources from various sources.
In this sense it is not dependent on a specific person. This is a form of
independence.

I would also suggest that perhaps you should procure a better dictionary.
I'm too lazy to type the whole thing in, but in my OED, the subsection of
the "autonomy" entry dealing specifically with biological meanings of the
word gives a couple of quotes -- one which refers to the branches of a
tree having "autonomy", and one which refers to the different types of
body tissue (muscles, nerves, etc.) as having "autonomy". If these things
have "autonomy", wouldn't a viable fetus have it too?

								- Kevin

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion