From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:02:12 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr16.210420.11986@ncsu.edu> 
	dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>> No amount of handwaving can change the fact that an abortion kills
>>>> the fetus.
>
>I never said it was. My analogy, which you deleted in your response, 
>showed that killing a person, and refusing to support them, are two totally
>different concepts. Pro-choicers would lead us to believe that an 
>abortion only severes the link between the mother and the fetus,
>which is false. An abortion kills the fetus. You have not addressed 
>that point anywhere in your response.

Let me try to clarify my position.  

My objective was to show that a pro-choice view is still valid, even if the
fetus is considered to be a person.

I argued that in pregnancy, two people (the fetus and the woman), are
competing for resources (the woman's body).  

One of my assumptions is that a person owns their own body (this includes the 
fetus, in this argument).  I also assumed that (a) no human has the right to
enslave another, and (b) no human has the right to extract support from
another.  From these assumptions, I concluded that a pregnant woman has the
right to not support a fetus if she so choses.

Mr. Holtsinger states that abortion is not so much a "termination of
support", but rather a "killing of the fetus".  This is not an entirely
invalid argument.  Current abortion techniques do not aim to terminate
support.  

Would Mr. Holtsinger approve of a technique that, for example, detached the
placenta from the uterine wall, or constricted the flow through the umbilical
cord?  Maybe a drug could be taken that would inactivate the nutrient
delivery system at some point.  Would that be any more palatable?  I doubt
that it would.

Consider this analogy.  If someone moves on to a peice of land that you own
and plants crops for nourishment, would you try to remove this person?  You
may chose to let this person live on your land and use your resources.
Nothing legally compels you to do this, however.  You could apply weed
killer on your land to make it less hospitable.  You could even forcibly
remove this person and the law will be on your side.  Suppose that after you
force this person off your land, he/she dies of starvation?  Are you
liable?  Morally and ethically, perhaps, but not legally.  The state should
not dictate interactions between individuals.  Suppose your family is also
down on its luck and you NEED that land for survival.  There is no way that
you can accommodate the needs of this stranger that moved in on your land.
It is up to you to decide what is to be done with this fictional stranger.

This analogy is not perfect.  No analogy ever is.  Consider that the state
can not force me to give up a kidney or bone marrow to save another's life,
even if I am the only one who is a potential match.  I do have absolute
rights to deny another the use of my body.

I hope this cleared thing up somewhat...
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Caffeine Consumption        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion