From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:21:04 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>> No, I've stated that no human should be forced to support another 
>> against their will. They should not, however, have the right to kill 
>> another human, except in self-defense.  

> Given our current level of technology, forbidding the deliberate
> killing of a fetus would raise the cost of getting unpregnant
> to a level that very few women could afford, all because your
> fastidiousness is less offended by letting a fetus die slowly.

I've made no arguments about what the law should say with respect to
abortion. Personally, I am undecided on the issue. I think it's possible 
for people to believe that killing a fetus is wrong, but that no law 
should penalize persons for killing a fetus. 

> Is it possible that 
> such a result would not be out of keeping with your agenda?

I'm giving you my value system. It is not an agenda.

> Could it be that splitting hairs over method, when the end result
> for the first-tri fetus will be exactly the same regardless of the
> method employed, is simply an elaborate rationalization designed
> to grant a woman her autonomy in principle, while effectively
> denying her a choice in practice?

Even if the end result turns out to be the same, it still does not 
justify the means.

Is any person justified in killing a dying person without their permission? 
The end result is the same whether they are left to die or if they are
killed.

> Perhaps subjective judgements of the relative value of human
> life have provided the rationale for many laws. 

Yes, subjective judgments of the value of human life have provided
the rationale for denying women the right to vote, denying blacks 
the right to freedom, and denying the unborn their right to exist.
I cannot support that value system. 

Can you please give me your reasoning as to why the fetus should
not be granted rights, and which is NOT based upon a subjective
judgment of human life.  

> The law allows those who wish to do so to go on eating meat, even 
> though doing so contributes to the world hunger problem by using more of
> the earth's arable land to feed fewer people.

A person who eats meat cannot kill another person by not supporting
them. 

>> If medical science advanced to the point where the fetus could be
>> transferred intact from one human to another without killing it, 
>> then my approach would allow for that action. 

> And you have no problem with removing the rights of born women
> in the meantime?

I had thought you were above asking loaded questions. I am not certain  
what the law should say.

>> Does bodily autonomy only relate to the concept of physical attachment, 
>> or does it include other types of attachment as well? What rights 
>> does a person have when another human organism attaches to them
>> in a non-physical manner (like for example, a financial attachment)?

> Just physical. Other types of attatchment may be covered other types 
> of autonomy, or not.

How about child support? That is a financial attachment. Do you support
child support laws? If so, then why is a financial attachment justified
under the law, but not a physical attachment? 

>> Is a human life any less worthy because it is attached to a
>> respirator? 

> I don't think worthiness is an issue. There's no fundamental
> right to be kept alive in that way. 

Are their lives less worthy, yes or no? Please answer.

> If there are two individuals
> in need and only one respirator available, a decision has to be
> made.

But no matter what the decision, no person can be forced to accept
a value judgment of human life. Laws (or decisions) cannot force 
beliefs, correct? 

>> Is it less worthy because it is attached to another human? 

> Here again, I don't think 'worthy' is the basis for decision.
> I don't think anyone should take away a woman's right to self
> determination, even if a fetus dies in the process.

How about if a fetus is killed in the process?

>> Do you have any objection to the premise that no human can judge
>> the value of another human's existence? 

> Sure, one counterexample should be sufficient. Take triage.

Triage is a decision made by medical personnel in a battlefield
situation as to who is most worthy of support, not who is worthy of 
existence. The medical personnel are NOT judging the value of
human life, they are judging their abilities to save the lives of
a group of individuals. 

Any more examples?

> Do you have any problem with the premise, 'a pregnant woman should
> have the same rights as other born human beings'?

Change it to, 'a pregnant woman should have an equal right to exist
as other human lives', and I would agree. 

> You still have not answered the question from Cathi Cook about what 
> equivalent burdens you would impose on the male who impregnates
> a woman, even though your agenda effectively imposes a physical
> burded on women only. 

Please propose an "equivalent" physical burden on the male.

> It is interesting that you deleted the portion
> of my posting in which I requested that she repost an old article of
> hers addressing that issue. When she does, I hope you think about
> it carefully.

I just sent e-mail to her asking her to either post or e-mail that
article to me.

> muriel

Doug Holtsinger