From: parker@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:26:03 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.111932.26271@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.095118.21147@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.093545.11533@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec25.042418.4549@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[long debate deleted]

>>A fetus is not a member of society until it is born, 

>As I speculated, you seem to have subjugated your BA argument to some other
>belief system -- something which gives emphasis to "membership in society".
>All that matters to pure Bodily Autonomy is whether the organism is human
>or not -- "membership in society" is seen as a mundane, bureaucratic 
>classification.

Oh, so "society" is irrelevant, but if it's *human* then there you go, it
has a right to bodily autonomy.  So, other animals don't have any such rights?
(Most probably don't.)  How about dolphins (which are more intelligent than
humans and quite possibly sentient)?

What if we encountered sentient aliens?  (unlikely, I agree)  Would they have
a right to bodily autonomy?  If you would exclude them, how would you feel if
they decided to exclude humans and started killing us at will?

"Society" need not be the bureaucratic nonsense we live in; it could be as
simple as a family alone on an island.  Even then the unborn is not a "member".


>See above. "Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
>of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.

What if those necessary beneficial effects are removed? (which is what the
pro-removals are arguing)  Can you at least see that the fetus is (unknowingly)
having an effect on her physiology (including some things that are pretty much
permanent) which may not be desired?

>>There is _no_ sense of the word 'autonomy' that I can see applying
>>to a fetus in utero.  

>BODILY autonomy. The right to not have one's biological functions affected
>to one's detriment, by the deliberate actions of another.

Well, I hate to make this argument (because I'm pro-abortion, not pro-removal),
but the pro-removals would say that abortion is not a deliberate detriment to
the fetus, the fetus dies as a side effect.

According to the dictionary:

autonomy:  1. The condition or quality of being autonomous; especially, the
power or right of self-government.  2. A self-governing community or group.
3. Self-determination.

autonomous:  1. Independent; self-governing.  2. (biology) Independent.

Definition 2 of autonomy obviously doesn't apply.  The others (in an individual
sense, because of the "bodily" modifier) are essentially the same:  Self-
determination.  (or independence)  A fetus is *not* independent; it requires
the processed resources of the mother.  A fetus also can not have self-
determination, because it can not *determine* for itself.  The rights of
determination must fall to the mother, much like the rights of determination
fall to a guardian, spouse, or relative in the case of a permanent coma (in
some states, anyway).

>								- Kevin

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion