From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:23:41 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul22.101440.23207@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes:

> In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
> >In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
> >of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. I think  
> >it's reasonable to assume that the alleged right to bodily autonomy 
> >must include the right not to be killed though dismemberment.  
> 
> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
> it was autonomous.[deletion]

  Show me a newborn infant that can survive more than a day or three without
someone to feed/care for it.  It must leech food and resources from outside
sources too.  Abandoning an infant is a crime, I believe.

  "Autonomous" can be defined several ways.

> >Let's explore the concept of bodily autonomy for a moment, using your 
> >example about "crazy gluing my hand onto your face". Suppose that you 
> >and I were in a lifeboat, and I pushed you overboard. Does my right to 
> >bodily autonomy include the right to consciously refuse your attempts 
> >to "crazy glue" your hand onto my face" if that were the only means of 
> >saving yourself from drowning? 
> 
> Yeah, I think so.

  That's not only morally wrong, but there are some laws about that sort of
thing.  "Negligence."  (Let's assume that pushing off the boat was accidental
in this case)  You can be convicted of it.  And go to jail.

> >Or what if you tried to grab hold of my arm -- would I have the right
> >to remove your hand from my arm and let you drown, even if I had pushed
> >you overboard? 
> 
> Even if you didn't push this guy overboard, you aren't obligated to help him.
> It's a decision that YOU get to make.  I think he'd appreciate it if you
> decided to help him, and that he'd be upset with you if you didn't, but
> ultimately you're the one who has to live with the choice that you've made.

  This is easily the most morally bankrupt approach I've seen yet.  Given the
general set of morals in most cultures I'm aware of, refusing aid is typically
regarded as a crime, and the refuser ostracized.  I'd say you're obligated all
right.

[deletions]

> >If the fetus enjoys the right to bodily autonomy, then it cannot be
> >killed by others. Even if you can show that the right to bodily 
> >autonomy should apply in the hypothetical lifeboat scenario above,  
> >the existence of the fetus' right to bodily autonomy would imply 
> >that the vast majority of abortions cannot be justified. 
> 
> 1)  Yes, bodily autonomy should apply to your lifeboat example.

  I don't.

> 1.5)  I hold that the fetus does not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy.
>       [Gee, therefore it would seem that it is a part of the woman's body,
>       something akin to a parasite, I suppose...]
> 2)  But the fetus does not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy so this leads
>     us to...
> >If the fetus does not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy, then you 
> >must distinguish between the fetus and the mother if you are to 
> >deny rights to the fetus. But in doing so, you may wind up denying
> >rights to other persons, such as infants or those persons in a coma.  
> 3)  [2) from above applies], but I'm not sure how we are supposed to make
>     a distinction between the fetus and the mother if we just decided that
>     we do not have bodily autonomy.

  I have to agree with this.

> 4)  Ok, let's say for kicks that we do distinguish the fetus from the
>     mother...  Hey, I'm not entirely clear how we make the jump straight to
>     "other persons," and let me tell you, young 'uns (under 18) are denied a
>     whole bunch of things.  Also, I'm not entirely sure what kind of rights
>     you are referring to for people in a coma.  The right to live, even if
>     someone chooses to disconnect the artificial life support?  Well, if
>     they can survive on their own, they will.

  Here the poster makes the implication that since those under 18 are denied
certain rights/privileges, we can apply this logic to the fetus in depriving
it of its right to life--under the assumption that it has bodily autonomy and
thus rights.  I assume this coma business is an extension into the "helpless"
aspect of the fetus.  In his last two sentences the respondent makes a state-
ment that could be used as an arguement to refuse treatment to the severly
injured--"Well, if they can survive on their own, they will."

  In his defense, I don't think that what he intended...but that's how it 
sounded.

> >>Micheal Rawdon
> >
> >Doug Holtsinger
> 
> -Richard

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion