From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Lost boy, please speak for yourself.
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:20:17 GMT

Another thread dedicated to me? Hmmm...

In article <34370@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <BzF13M.9Cx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
>smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes several incorrect
>statements regarding what he terms 'most prochoicers.'

To which I respond:
>
>(1) He asserts that most of us who support a woman's right to choose
>consider /z/e/f/s persons by the third trimester. 

Nonsense. I stated *several times* that there are some prochocers  that
believe that a fetus gains personhood at birth, and some who believe that
a fetus gains personhood at the third trimester. I also stated that most
believe that  personhood starts at birth. I base this on the position papers
put out by NARAL and ECDC.

> Personally, I think
>personhood is a red herring in this debate, as I have made clear on
>many occasions.  With respect to claims of murder, however, personhood
>is clear, it begins at birth.

Personhood is a red herring; however, it goes directly to a moral argument.
As far as the legality of abortion is concerned, I'm happy with the law the
way it stands on this issue. Call me a tool of the Status Quo (maybe I am),
but I really think that this thing is a private descision one must make
on moral grounds. My arguments mostly go the morality of abortion, NOT
the legality.

>
>(2) That the right of separation argument is consistent with a
>statement that a fetus gains rights by achieving personhood.  

I have never touched right of separation, to the best of my knowledge.
If i have done so then it was inadvertent. As for fetus rights, yes I
do believe that  a fetus gains rights upon achieving personhood. This
is what Human Rights are about. As far as  when a fetus becomes a person,
I am satisfied with the legal definition as far as the law is concerned,
and I am struggling instead with a MORAL position.

>This
>shows that he misunderstands the bodily autonomy argument almost as
>much as DODIE does.  A five year old child cannot demand the use of
>the tissue, organs, or bodily fluids of either of its parents.  

According to the laws of the State of Illinois, of which I am from, a parent
is responsible for the feeding and care of a child until it is 18 or until
said child becomes an emancipated minor. As for 

>By
>symmetry, the /z/e/f/ also cannot use the body of its parent.
>Personhood is irrelevant.  A right of separation (to cease unwanted
>use of bodily resources) exists until birth.

>(3) Buys into DODIE's equivalency between intentional homicide and
>refusing to donate bodily tissue, fluids, or organs to save another
>entity. 

This is a gross exageration on your part. I NEVER would state, or make
a statement which implies, if I could forsee such an implication, that
a failure to donate bodily fluids to those who need it is EVIL or MURDEROUS.
This is simply not the case. People have a right to do with their bodies
as they choose, and I cannot ask another person to give up a kidney so
another may live. To state that my unwillingness to do so constitutes 
murder is not only extreme but incorrect, because murder involves malace
aforethought. I cannot maliciously refuse to donate organs. I have pointed
this out to DODIE again and again in previous posts. All I can say is that
DODIE is no lawyer. 

If I have contradicted myself here, without sufficent explaination of
my contradiction, by accident or by intent, then I would kindly ask that
in the future someone please point it out to me nicely so I can correct 
myself instead of flaming me and putting me on the defensive where I have
to either ignore the flame and look really bad or answer the flame and look
agressive. I have enough trouble dealing with DODIE without being accused of
espousing his positions.

>Then uses this to reiterate his belief that the fundamental
>disagreement between anti-choice and pro-choice involves the
>personhood of the fetus.  This is not what I hear most pro-choice
>people saying at all.

Then perhaps you should take the time to reexamine the moral positions
of the two sides. I don't see too many pro-choicers agreeing with the
Anti-abortionists about the Anti-Abortion statement "life begins at
conception." Likewise, I don't see too many anti-abortionists agreeing
with the pro-choice statement "life begins at birth." From where I 
stand this IS  the fundamental disagreement between the two sides.

>(4) Buys into DODIE's caricature of the pro-choice position as being a
>self-defense argument.  

That is a lie.

>(5) Falls into the trap of engaging in a debate with DODIE about the
>differences between late term /z/e/f/s and newborns.  The only
>difference between them relative to the right to abortion is that one
>is in the mother's body and the other is not.  

This may certainly be the case as far as the law is concerned or should be
concerned. As far as I am concerned, this is an important moral point which 
needs to be discussed openly.

>A 5 year old child, who
>is clearly a legal and ethical person, cannot demand that its parent
>use their body to save its life.  Why should a /z/e/f be given this
>right?  Personhood, a clearly defined legal term, and the differences
>between a zygote and a child, while obvious, are irrelevant.

As you have correctly stated, a child cannot by law demand that his or her
parents use their bodies to save his or her life. Wheither a parent has
a moral obligation to do so is another matter entirely. Same with a
/z/e/f. 

>One question: Why does he want to grant
>rights to 3rd trimester /z/e/f/s to use the body of their mother that
>are routinely denied to 5 year olds?  

I do not. See above, please. 

>I also wish Lost Boy would cease
>attributing a lot of irrelevant stuff about personhood to `most
>pro-choicers.'  

As irrelevant as this may seem to you, these are things which are still
fundamental to the ProChoice position. As far as wheither 'most pro-choicers'
agree with my position, I base this assertion on the fact that I use
NARAL and ECDC position papers as a structure for my argument. While not
all ProChoicers will agree with NARAL or ECDC, these organizations have enough
respect in the ProChoice community so that they may effectivly be considered
a standard for the ProChoice movement.

>SJM
>

Lost Boy