From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:52:08 GMT

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

# > To me, the issue is not abortion -- it is abortion rights.  The fact
# > that my XY chromosome pair specifically dictated that my body not have
# > a uterus, pretty much makes any opinion I might have concerning
# > when an abortion should be permissible and when it shouldn't into an
# > intellectual exercise with no bearing on me personally.
# 
# This whole paragraph is circular in that one has to first believe that
# the fetus does not qualify as an individual human in the same way that
# a born child

How -- pray tell -- does that follow?  I can guarantee that I will
*never* need to decide whether to have an abortion or not.  Therefore,
the issue of whether abortion is or isn't the murder of an `unborn
person'  *is*  *an*  *intellectual*  *exercise* for me.

# > By definition, individual legal rights rest on the assumption that
# > individual persons can be identified and distinguished from those
# > creatures and things that are not persons. 
# 
# The ability to be "identified" is certainly up to interpretation and
# technology

What does `ability to be identified' mean?  All I'm saying here is
that the idea of individual rights for all persons implies that the
set of all persons can be identified with certainty.

# >                                             The trouble is that human
# > reproduction is a gradual process and there simply isn't an obvious
# > event where a new person exists where a second before there wasn't
# > one.  
# 
# This again is circular in that it a priori excludes the view that life
# begins at conception.

I disagree.  I haven't yet expounded on any views I might hold on
whether an individual person's lifetime begins at his/her conception.
I was expressing the view that there isn't an *obvious* event where a
person's `individuality' begins.
 
# > There must be a point at which individual rights are conferred upon a
# > new human individual, and because the reproductive process is a
# > gradual one, that point cannot be a natural one -- it *must* be
# > artificial.  The trick is picking the politically correct artificial
# > point.
# 
# From a statistical standpoint the breakpoint, or "phase change" if you
# will is very highly localized in time. The reproductive process is only
# gradual because you DEFINE it so.

You would be correct if it was axiomatic that the beginning of human
individuality is conception.  I see no reason to make that an axiom,
thus I stick with the simpler observation that the process of human
reproduction is gradual, and that there is no natural point in time
at which human individuality can be understood to have begun.

# > I think rights should be conveyed upon individuals upon live birth --
# >..... simply because the
# > state need not abridge the rights of the mother to protect the rights
# > of a newborn, but it *must* abridge the rights of the mother to
# > protect the `rights' of a fetus.
# 
# This is in essence the crux of the problem.  Implicit in an anti-abortion
# position is that women have different responsibilities than men because
# of their biology.  To the 'old guard' women's movement this is heresy.

I'm not at all concerned with assigning responsibilities to people
based on their physiology.  My concern is with rights.  I don't think
you need to be an `old guard' feminist to find heresy in the idea of
`responsibility from physiology' -- I should imagine being an
egalitarian would be enough.

# > Put simply, I believe that every woman has the right to control what
# > happens to her body, and if that means permitting women to have
# > abortions at nine months of pregnancy if they choose, then that's what
# > it means.
# 
# That's easy to say - but I think things would be different if you were
# required to witness such a late term abortion.

You volunteering to have a late term abortion so I can watch?  (This
may sound like a flippant response, but there is a subtle point to be
made in asking the question.)


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity