From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 28 Jan 1993 10:41:24 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1993Jan27.195347.19881@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>Does this mean you've got some spare time on your hands?
just a flying visit...

Me>>
Steve>
>First:  The reasoning used above would compel us to make it legal to
>give your kids to the government as soon as you feel they are unacceptably
>limiting your rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (especially
>if they weren't "wanted" in the first place).  Why?  Because we'd want to
>make sure that "other acceptable options exist".  And that seems to be
>the only thing holding the 2-week-old's right to life above the parents'
>rights to control their own lives.

That and the state. The alternative is for the state to make it legal for 
_kids_ to give  their parents to the govt (i.e. imprison them for failing to 
feed them). Why is this better?  Either way the kid gets to be a de facto 
orphan.

>Second:  "Other acceptable options" do NOT always exist.  What then?
>Should we use chloral hydrate?  Cervical dislocation?  Carbon monoxide?

I don't think you can expect any ethical standard to leave smiles
on everybody's faces in a no-win situation. An ethical standard can't
create goodness any more than an economic theory can create wealth.
If no acceptable options exist, then the parents are going to stop
feeding the kid, if that's the way they feel about it. If the state
can do something about this, then obviously acceptable options do
exist. 

>Last:  "...other acceptable options exist."  If you say so.
>"The same cannot be said in the case of abortion."  Oh?  Let me try...
>
>Other acceptable options exist in the case of abortion.
>
>There.  I did it.  At least one other option exists: allowing the
>pregnancy to continue.  Why is this option not "acceptable"?  

Sometimes (Mostly?) it is. However the state's forcing of that option isn't.

>Why
>can we pry into the parents' lives after the birth of their now-
>unwanted child?  Frank, tell me why I should agree with you.  There
>is *nothing* in the arguments in question that I find compelling or
>self-evident.

Do you accept that you have the right to control your own body? That
this is a consequence of the right to liberty? That this entitles you
to the following: not to be strapped down and forced to donate organs
and tissues, not to be conscripted into the medical profession in, say,
Somalia, not to be forcibly connected to a blood transfusion device, etc.
If so, then I think you need to explain why you have this right, and not
women. Especially pregnant women.

>> I think most people would agree that there is more to living a life than 
>> staying the right side of the law.  However these arguments depend only 
>> on the assumption that *nobody* has a right to claim support from *anybody*, 
>> where this involves the intimate use of one's body against one's will. 
>
>I'll be brief.  I reject the assumption that children have no right to
>claim support from their parents.  I am sickened by the notion that an
>unborn child is a blood-sucking intruder.  I also concede that there is
>little to be gained in trying to force people to care for their children
>even if we can force them to feed their children).  If our society
>considers its children to be unwelcome, uninvited parasites
>with no right to "claim [life-giving] support" from their own parents,
>then I hope that abortion (legal or not) hastens its demise.

If society were as you describe there would be no such thing as state 
custody.

>>>In my opinion, your position is not nearly as strong as you'd like
>>>me to believe.
>
>> You got something better?
>
>Sure.  Whatever their rights, parents lay down part of their lives
>for the sake of their children.  If the government has to force them
>to do it, then all is already lost.

Exactly.

>>>> If she wants to get rid
>>>> of the fetus, she should certainly be allowed to; it is unfortunate
>>>> that this results in the death of the fetus.
>
>>>If she wants to get rid of the 3-year-old, she should certainly be
>>>allowed to; it is unfortunate that....
>
>> ....this should result in custody of the child going to the state. Yes
>> it is.
>
>Especially in, e.g., Somalia, where "the state" does not exist, and the
>only barrier to infanticide mentioned in this thread is removed.
>Oops.  Did I say "infanticide"?  Heh.  Sorry.  She'll "get rid" of
>the 3-year-old by abandoning her.  It is unfortunate that this
>results in the death of the 3-year-old.

No-win situation. See above.  

>Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
>sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu

Frank O'Dwyer.
odwyer@sse.ie