From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:02:31 CDT

In article <1992Jul24.155801.7456@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.164302.460@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>
>> autonomy, n.
>>
>> 1. The quality or state of being self-governing
>> 2. A self-governing state
>> 3. Self-directing freedom esp. moral independence
>>
>> source: Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary
>>
>> In the first place, it is difficult to imagine a 
>> self-governing or self-directing state for an entity
>> which is completely contained within the body of 
>> another. 
>
>Why not? 
>
Where will it direct itself?  What kind of moral
decisions will it make?
>
>> In the second place, it's impossible for the woman
>> and the fetus to have 'the same right to bodily
>> autonomy'.  
>
>Why not? The woman and the fetus are both members of the 
>human species, and so they should enjoy the same right to
>bodily autonomy. 

You are mighty free with the word 'should' here, Doug.
Are you suggesting that since the fetus is effectively 
kept on a very short leash, the woman should be, too?

>                 A late-term fetus is not much different 
>from a newborn infant, and so if you deny rights to the 
>late-term fetus, then you will automatically deny rights to 
>the newborn infant.
> 
No, I won't.  A recently post-dead corpse is not much
different from a pre-dead geek...

But I'm a strong proponent of geek's rights!
>
>> If you start awarding any rights whatever
>> to fetuses, you do so only by removing rights from
>> the woman who must defer to it.  
>
>You simply presuppose that the woman has the right to kill the fetus
>in the first place.
>
No, I don't.  We've been around this mulberry bush before, 
as I recall.  The woman has the right to say who can use
the interior of her genitals, and when.  I think you would
like to require, if I remember correctly, major abdominal
surgery for all early term abortions, because it's more 
'moral' to simply remove the fetus and let it die slowly.
The expense would be prohibitive for most women, so the
incidence of legal abortions would be greatly reduced. Did
I leave anyuthing out?

I also recall that you did _not_ seem troubled by the
notion that a pregnant woman would have less rights to
her body than any other born person, under your moral
system.

>> Since a fetus is
>> generally incapable of enjoying or expressing such
>> things as 'self-directing freedom', removing the
>> autonomy rights of the woman in favor of the fetus
>> seems ludicrous.
>
>Since a newborn infant is generally incapable of enjoying or 
>expressing such things as 'self-directing freedom', your logic 
>would require us to deny rights to newborn infants.
>
There are limits to the expressions of 'self-directing
freedom' that are possible for a newborn.  The possibilities
for a newborn are orders of magnitude beyond those of a
late term fetus, however.

Also, a newborn baby does not impinge on the bodily
autonomy of another.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion