Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 08:26:40 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Listen to what s/he said not what s/he meant

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> Back to Missy: I have a question or two regarding this self-defense
> business.  If the situation is that either both will die or only the
> mother can be saved, then I have no problem.  But in a situation
> where one can be saved, why should it be the mother.  Is the
> child any less human, with less rights?  If all else is equal,
> I have to give the vote to save the baby, after all s/he did not
> have any say in the pregnancy.

>                      There are very few actual medical situations
>                      in which the life chances of each party are
>                      equal.  In those cases, the mother, the
>                      doctor, and the family must decide together
>                      what shall be done.  This is an extreme case,
>                      a back-to-the-wall case, a case in which there
>                      can be nothing else done but decide between two
>                      evils.  Only the family can make this decision.
>                      And only God can forgive the action that is taken.

I will agree with you, for the time being, that most cases involve
danger to BOTH mother and the fetus.  But just one question about
the case that only one will live: I have no problem with the mother
consulting the husband, a doctor, and God, but I wished you had said
that in the final analysis the decision would be the mother's alone.  Oh well.

So for now I will concentrate on the case that both lives are in
danger unless an abortion is performed.  I cannot take it for
granted that just because both lives are in danger that that
permits us to actively go out and "murder" one of them.  I comprehend
cases like this: two people are drowning, "M" and "B".  If we try
to save "B" both will die, however, we CAN  save only "M."  So a
conscious   decision is made to save "M" first and IF there is extra
time (which probably won't be) we will save "B."  You see the difference?
In my example we simply don't do anything, in the abortion case you
are advocating killing a person.  I see a big difference.

One more example:  There are these two people "M" and "B".  "B" needs
a liver transplant but has a good kidney.  "A" needs a kidney transplant
but has a good liver.  We are on an island whose doctor can only
perform kidney transplant.  What are we to do?  Either both "M" and
"B" are gonna die or we can at least save "M".  We cannot wait
till death is close for "B".  For medical reasons we have to kill
"B" while in relative good health for the kidney transplant to work.
So what are we gonna do?  Kill "B" in order to save "M", even if
"B" is neither willing nor capable  of giving consent?  I think the answer
to this question is an obvious one?

So what is it that is different between your abortion to save the
mother case and my "M,B" kidney/liver transplant case?  What is this
special relationship between the mother and the fetus that gives
priority to the mother?  Is it:

           1.  The fetus is kinda of an aggressor?
           2.  A person has a right to refuse other the use of
               her body?
           3.  Fetus is a person but is less of a person?
           4.  Feel free to add your rational(s) here.

We all agree that (1) is not the case.  In fact I have already said
that in my opinion the mother has less right than person "M" because
a mother has knowingly (knowing about all risks) invited the fetus
to use her body and therefore she has some kinda obligation towards
the fetus.

Richard, I, and perhaps others believe in (2).  Do you?

And I don't think you believe in (3), right?

Now let me change gear and use your "self-defense" argument and
pose a couple more questions.  In everyday life a person is allowed
to use whatever force necessary to protect his/her life, right?
We all agree on that, right?  In other words if an intruder is
about to kill you, you can kill him/her in order to save your own life.

It is also my understanding that even if your health (mot necessarily
your life) is in danger you can still use what ever force necessary
to avoid the injury.  Say, it is obvious that an intruder is going to
break your arm.  In that case you are justified whatever force necessary
(including taking the life of the intruder) to avoid injury.  It is
my understanding that you can use whatever force necessary (including
great bodily harm and taking a life, if necessary) in order to protect
your property from an intruder's action.  Right?  Say an intruder
orders you out of the house and wants to blow your house away with
dynamite.  You can shoot the person in order to save your house, right?

Now, you tell me a woman can kill her fetus/baby to save her life.
Fine.  Why is it that the same mother cannot kill the fetus as a
measure of "self-defense" if the fetus will cause her physical
harm (though it may be less than costing her LIFE)?

I am really sincere about these question and somewhat open to
be persuaded in either direction.  I hope the same holds for
you.

>                             --Missy P 2 B

--KAT

p.s.  Do you find abortion of a 7-month "baby" more repulsing than
      abortion of a 2-month "baby"?  Why?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU