From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:16:29 GMT

In article <nyikos.715886268@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep6.204246.28271@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>On the flip side, I would give a woman every right to control her own
>>>body, but a fetus is not part of her body and the right does not extend
>>>to controlling it.   

>>You are being unrealistic and possibly hypocritical here.

>I don't think I've ever called you possibly hypocritical.  Please wait
>till you hear me out next time.

I thought I had heard you out.  However, I'll see if this article
changes my mind....

>>A woman doesn't absolutely *have* to control a fetus in order to kill
>>it.  If she has surgery to remove a tiny bit of her *own* body, right
>>where the umbilical cord connects, the fetus will die in very short
>>order.

>WRONG!!! The fetus, umbilical cord, placenta, and bag of waters all
>come from the original fertilized ovum.  [Can't blame you for not
>knowing this, I didn't know it a month and a half ago either.  It was
>only established well after the start of this century, and most books
>and articles on fetal development don't make it at all clear.]

Hm.  Last I'd heard, the placenta came from *both* the fertilized ovum
*and* the woman's uterus.

And this is entirely irrelevant in any case.  My point stands; the
woman could surgically removed the piece of her own body that the
umbilical cord connects to.  The fetus will die in very short order.

>I'd 
>wager less than 10% of all PRO-LIFERS know this much, which is why
>they are so uncomprehending when women say that a fetus looks like
>a "clot," "clump of cells", and "mass of tissue," when only contact
>of these latter women with
>embryology might be a miscarriage where the chorionic sac is expelled
>whole, with the embryo/fetus hidden inside.

>>  Presumably it can then be removed.  On the flip side, unless
>>the woman has the right to control the fetus's body (whether directly
>>as in a modern-day abortion, or indirectly by controlling her own body
>>as above), she loses the right to control her own body to avoid the
>>effort and effects of being pregnant.

>This is a rather pointless tautology that you have just made.  Of course
>I wouldn't give absolute rights to control over a person's body, just
>as I wouldn't give a fetus (or anyone else) an absolute right to life.
>The right to self-defense sometimes involves abrogating that right.  But
>the right to self-defense is not absolute either.  Despite what a lot of
>people think, one does not have the right to kill any old intruder in 
>one's home; one must have real reasons for thinking that intruder poses
>a threat of grave bodily harm to one or more people living in one's home. 

In other words, the woman does not have a right to control her own
body in ways designed to make the fetus suffer.  Correct?

>>In the *real* world, either the woman can control both her own body
>>and the fetus's during pregnancy, or she can't control either.

>True to a degree.  She does not abdicate all, or even most, control to
>her body.  

No, but she does lose a significant chunk of control over her body.
(I don't think she abdicates it....)

I don't think you're being hypocritical.  I *do* think you're being
extremely unrealistic if you claim that you would allow women to
control their own bodies (while pregnant).

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion