Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 12:42:08 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
 <1992Apr7.021949.12784@ncsu.edu> <1992Apr07.190812.4654@sdd.hp.com>
 <1992Apr9.014654.21409@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>

In article <1992Apr4.183736.25835@ncsu.edu> Doug Hotsinger
writes:

In article <1992Apr03.225028.6608@sdd.hp.com> Adrienne Regard
says:

>>>> You are the father of a child.  This child has a rare blood
>>>> disorder.  The only way this child will survive is if you
>>>> are hooked up to a dialysis machine for 24 hours a day for
>>>> nine  months (1).  At the end of the time your child will be
>>>> cured, and you can then go on your merry way.

>>> This hypothetical scenario is not an exact parallel to
>>> pregnancy.

Missed this the first time around.  It was not supposed to be an
exact parallel to pregnancy.  There is obviously no exact
parallel to pregnancy.  It was, however, an attempt to get
prolifers to discuss the implications of imposing a bodily
obligation of support onto parents of living children.

>>> If the father were to take no action, then the child would
>>> surely die.   There is no equivalent "inaction" during
>>> pregnancy that would result in the death of the fetus,
>>> therefore the above analogy fails.

>> I suppose that the claims a fetus makes upon the body of a
>> woman are 'inactive' in your view?

> I don't see how your question relates to my argument. Do you
> agree that the original hypothetical scenario is not analogous
> to pregnancy?

Do you feel that women who abuse drugs do not have to quit while
pregnant?

Do you feel that women do not need to adequately feed or care for
their bodies during pregnancy?

Do you feel that women do not need to avoid strenuous or
dangerous (such as sky diving) activities while pregnant?

Do you feel that women do not need to avoid being exposed to
toxic substances while pregnant?

Do you feel that women do not need to obtain medical advice
and prenatal care?

All of the above require the woman to take active measures to
ensure the survival and good health of the developing fetus.
Some of the requirements may infringe on the woman's professional
life and/or personal enjoyment.

>The fetus takes a "default" action by growing inside the body of
>a woman. It cannot make a claim upon the body of a woman -- it
>simply exists.

The prolife position as stated by Mr. Welch and several others is
that the fetus is a child and therefore entitled to the rights of
existing children.  If this premise is true then the existing
child should have the same rights as that of a fetus, ie. to
impose his survival on the parent.

>> Your evaluation of pregnancy in the first place leaves a lot
>> to be desired.

>I wasn't evaluating pregnancy, I was illustrating the flaws in
>the original analogy.

Then the flaws are fundamental within the prolife position that
the fetus has a right to survival at the expense of the mother's
bodily autonomy because the fetus is equal to a living child.

>>> If the child did not need to be physically connected to the
>>> father  (thus removing the possibility of the child's death
>>> due to the father's inaction), then removing dialysis
>>> treatment from the child would constitute murder, in my
>>> opinion.

>> But if the child *did* need to be physically connected?  And
>> WAS  physically connected?  Is it your opinion that the father
>> could not  take the action to DISconnect?

> You missed the point. If the child did need to be physically
> connected to the father to live, and assuming that the father
> was not connected to the child, then the child would die if the
> father decided to take no action. Only through active steps
> could the father save the child's life. The father cannot
> murder the child by taking no action.

Then you oppose any of the current measures taken against
pregnant women who do not follow medical advice to ensure the
safe survival of the fetus?  Under your theory women arrested and
charged for a variety of offenses ranging from illegal drug use
to failure to follow medical advice, should not have been because
all they failed to do was take active steps to prevent the death
or damage to the fetus.

> During pregnancy, the situation is the *exact opposite*. If the
> mother takes no action, then the child will be born and it will
> live.

This is wrong.  A pregnant woman must take active steps if she
wishes to ensure that the fetus will develop normally and in good
health.

> If the mother takes active steps to terminate the pregnancy,
> then the fetus will die. Therefore the hypothetical scenario
> given above is not analogous to pregnancy because the child
> would die if the father took NO action, but the fetus would die
> if the mother DID take action. Killing can only be accomplished
> through active means. Abortion is an active means.

If your position is that women are not required to actively
ensure a safe and healthy pregnancy I will agree with you.
However if your position is that she is responsible to ensure
viability, by taking the steps necessary, then your argument is
not valid and the scenario still stands.



Linda
--
"In Wisconsin, a sixteen-year-old pregnant girl was confined to a
secure detention facility because of her alleged tendencies "to
be on the run" and "to lack motivation" to seek prenatal care."
S. Faludi, Backlash