From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:04:13 CST

In article <1992Dec29.200040.23450@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1992Dec24.160149.23624@hemlock.cray.com>,
>by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
>
>> In article <1992Dec23.212832.10957@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>>>From article <1992Dec23.104329.21553@hemlock.cray.com>,
>>>by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
>
[exchange with Doug about 'moral weight' deleted.]

>> [...]                     There have been several patient 
>> souls (I seem to remember Adrienne in particular) who have
>> pointed out in the past week that as long as the fetus is
>> _inside_ the woman, its presence and its prospective departure
>> pose a nonzero risk of death for her.  
>
>I fully acknowledge this fact, and I'm starting to regret entering
>a discussion that is framed around what someone else (in this case
>Doug H.) said.  Nevertheless, I'd like to state that it was my
>impression that the debate was centered on inherent moral differences
>between a late-term fetus and an infant.  If so, I question whether
>the location of the fetus/infant and the danger it poses are really
>inherent characteristics (in terms of morality) possessed by the
>fetus/infant.
>
Careful.  A woman's body is always _more_ than a mere
'location'.  Since the very definition of 'fetus' hinges
on a state of pregnancy for a woman, which is a profoundly
altering physical condition, I maintain that it's a morally
significant component of the fetus' existance.

>Here's an example of what I'm thinking in this situation:
>
> A person is being held prisoner in a field.  Another person arrives,
> assesses the situation, considers the risks to his or her safety as
> well as the risks to others in a nearby field, and decides to attempt
> a rescue.
>
> Another person is being held in a fortified building.  After careful
> consideration, the would-be rescuer decides against a rescue attempt,
> concluding that the risks involved do not justify the potential benefit
> (i.e. saving the captive's life).
>
>I maintain that the difference between the 2 captives has nothing to
>do with moral differences between them: they're both equally valuable
>and equally worthy of consideration for being rescued.  The difference
>lies in the moral climate inherent in the situation.  The lives of others
>are considered equally, but separately.
>
Your analogy does nothing to simulate the reality of
pregnancy and impending parturition.  Equating the
body of a living woman with any nonliving entity
always falls short of the situation, and generally
irritates the mothers in the group.

>> Since Doug has doubtless read responses containing this
>> precise point not once, but many times, his assertion
>> boils down to just what I said above.  Stated as an 
>> equation, it looks like this:
>>
>> woman = nothing
>
>He may have implied this elsewhere, and perhaps he implied it above.
>Again, I thought the debate was centered on the fetus/infant and I
>assumed that "factual differences" were much more narrowly applied
>to the moral status of the f/i.  I agree that a refusal to consider
>the woman's moral status leads to the above equation.

This is a key problem here.  Many of us find it highly
insulting, as well as misleading, to place the entire
focus of the debate on the fetus.  A very important
component of the nature of a fetus is the condition it
causes for a woman.  To try to approach the moral issues
of abortion in such a way that the woman is ignored or
made to seem insignificant _is_ misogynic.
>
>>>                     He's talking about the existence of a
>>>"moral difference between killing a newborn infant and killing
>>>a late-term fetus."  The interesting kernel of this debate is
>>>the fact that some might conclude that there is no such moral
>>>distinction, apart from the involvement of other persons.  Perhaps
>>>you'd be interested in addressing this.
>
>> If a full-term fetus is killed in utero, as part of a 
>> medical procedure, there is an _overwhelming_ liklihood
>> that a woman's life is profoundly at risk at the time.
>> If you can show documentation from an unbiased source
>> that full-term fetuses are being killed in utero for
>> trivial reasons, perhaps you'd have a point.  I suspect
>> that you have no such documentation, and therefore no point.
>
>You're right.  But that wasn't my point.  Note above:
>"The interesting kernel of this debate..." and following.
>Based on the responses I have seen, I was wrong about the
>kernel of the debate. 

This is exciting.  It's possible that some actual
communication is taking place here!

>                         I'm still curious about what folks
>think about the inherent moral status of a late-term fetus,

I don't think personhood occurs until birth, so I don't
know what to say of the 'moral status' of a late-term fetus.
I think the late-term fetus has tremendous _importance_,
in the overwhelming majority of cases, to the woman, her
loved ones, and her caregivers.

>and I'm a sucker for a good, interesting discussion of personhood
>and so forth.  I DO NOT advocate any philosophy or legal
>strategy that considers a fetus' (or a child's) rights to
>the exclusion (or underemphasis) of another's.
>
Does this mean that you would not favor legislation
restricting abortion?  Because I maintain that it's
impossible to give legal rights to a fetus without
compromising the rights of women.

[discussion of Doug's misogyny deleted]
>
>I've never seen it, but I don't read his posts much.  I've been
>around long enough to see a lot of pre-emptive strikes, and I've
>been on the receiving end a couple of times.  Since they tend
>to discourage meaningful debate, I find them frustrating and
>annoying.  Since your comment does not fall into this category,
>I must apologize.  My fault.
>
Accepted.
This was nicely done.  There are few on this forum who
can apologize gracefully when the situation calls for it.

[deletia]

muriel
standard disclaimer