From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:38:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.215728.28943@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.091616.7653@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}In article <1993Jan2.043830.9305@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}>In article <1993Jan1.021611.412@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}>}In article <1992Dec31.010805.20244@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}>}>
>}>}>It seems that Gregg Skinner, Paul Lebow, and Michael P Noonan among others
>}>}>think that slavery is a good analogy to abortion.  I maintain that there is
>}>}>no good analogy to abortion nor is there any good analogy to pregnancy.
>}>}
>}>}If you lack the ability to abstract from actual, mundane EXPERIENCES of 
>}>}pregnancy and/or abortion, Galen, how do you expect to ever discuss these
>}>}issues intelligently?
>}>}
>}>}Perhaps you should consider just leaving the discussion to those of us who 
>}>}CAN abstract... 
>}>
>}>Well, I might, except then people like Kevin Darcy might jump in with
>}>no counter.  Perhaps it escaped you, but using slavery as an analogy
>}>is often unproductive, as many are confused as to who is the oppressor
>}>and who is the oppressed, ...
>}
>}Correction: because GALEN is confused, or someone set up the analogy
>}improperly, NOT because the analogy is inherently faulty.
>
>I may be confused, but I am not alone in that confusion.  Mark Cochran
>pointed out that several of the pregnant women he has been associated
>with have likened pregnancy to their being enslaved, not the fetus.

When the analogy is set up properly, only an ignoramus would get confused
by it. There are, as you point out, two analogies that can be made between
pregnancy and abortion:

	A) Fetus as slave

	   Predicated on the notion that legalized abortion unjustly treats 
	   fetuses as having less rights than born humans. Sometimes this is
	   expressed as "treating fetuses like property".

	B) Pregnant woman as slave

	   Predicated on the notion that forced carriage of pregnancy unjustly
	   treats pregnant women's rights as subservient to those of the fetus.

There is little room for confusion there. The hotly-disputed premises embedded 
in (A) are, of course:

	A1) Does the fetus qualify for as much rights-protection as a born
	    person? (Personhood argument. Blech)

	A2) In what way are the rights of the fetus being infringed, in the
	    same way as the rights of slaves were infringed? The fetus is
	    not forced to LABOR on behalf of the mother, after all, and, 
	    since it is not capable of leaving the mother's womb, or of
	    even WANTING to leave the mother's womb, it cannot properly be
	    said that the fetus'es freedom of movement is compromised.

The hotly-disputed premises embedded in (B), on the other hand, are:

	B1) "Forced carriage of pregnancy" is an inaccurate term -- it is
	    the fetus'es right to life which is being protected, and right to
	    life is a more cherished right than right to "convenience" (which
	    is, as the argument goes, the only reason why women seek 
	    abortions), and should take precedence over it.

	B2) The fetus is not being given _more_ rights than a born person;
	    it's being given the _same_ rights. Just as we don't allow parents
	    to abandon their children and let them starve, we don't allow
	    pregnant women to abandon their non-viable fetuses by removing
	    them from their wombs. Even more poignantly, just as we don't
	    allow parents to deliberately suffocate and/or dismember their
	    born children, we shouldn't allow _in utero_ destruction of
	    viable fetuses either.

See, Galen? As long as the analogies are set up properly, it is perfectly
possible to get to the underlying PRINCIPLES that the analogies are intended
to demonstrate. The "fetus as slave" analogy demonstrates markedly DIFFERENT 
principles than the "pregnant woman as slave" analogy. There is no real cause 
for confusion.
	
Actually, besides "audience weak-mindedness" and "bad analogy setup", it just
occurs to me that there is another reason why the analogy might not work --
deliberate obfuscation. This happens when a pro-lifer (typically) presents
the "fetus as slave/property" analogy, and then an idiot pro-choicer 
(again, typically) jumps in with the "pregnant woman as slave" analogy for
the express purpose of confusing the issue so as to avoid having to squarely
address the original "fetus as slave/property" analogy. Slimy tactic.

>}>To put it rather bluntly, Kevin, I tend to care more for the "actual,
>}>mundane EXPERIENCES" as you put it, than I do for whatever abstracts you
>}>might care to construct.
>}
>}If that's true, then I fail to see how you, as a man, and therefore as 
>}someone unable to gestate and give birth to a child, i.e. as someone who
>}cannot actually experience abortion or its alternative, can possibly have
>}any meaningful contribution to an abortion discussion.
>
>That's abstracts you might care to construct Kevin -- see, you even quoted
>it.  

Your fingers are typing, Galen, but nothing but gibberish is showing up at
this end...

>}>ps  how is your definition of the crucial dividing line which you can't
>}>detect going?  
>}
>}The definition is well-known and well-understood in medical circles, Galen.
>}
>}Maybe all of these so-called medical "experts" you know are just fakers (?)
>
>Perhaps that is true, although I doubt it, and I also doubt that the
>University of Virginia medical school would care to have its faculty
>characterized that way.  

Maybe you just didn't ask the question properly, then...

>If it is so well known and crucial to you, how
>is it that you can't tell when it is or how to test for it?  

Galen, I can easily pay a medical drone to tell me whether a given fetus
is "viable" or not, according to the accepted and universal medical 
definitions. This is not a problem. One of the neat things about technology,
actually, is that the level of training and education necessary to USE a
given chunk of technology is usually far _less_ than the level of training and
education needed to DEVELOP that chunk of technology. In fact, that's the 
whole basis on which the secondary technology of human engineering is based
(what used to be called "ergonomics"). So it is, therefore, that I can easily 
drive an automobile without necessarily being able to build or design one, and 
I can use a computer, and I can benefit from medical technology. So, as 
someone speaking on a matter of social POLICY, it is not necessary for me to 
know how to detect viability for any given fetus, i.e. to get out the old
surgical mask, the scalpel, the calipers, the sonography machine, or whatever
the hell they use to determie viability -- it is only necessary for me to 
know that it CAN be detected fairly accurately and economically, and I can 
USE that technology in formulating my social policy opinions.

>You requested
>a list of options and I gave some to you, but you didn't even say "thanks."

Your list was a farce and an insult to the profession of medicine. No
self-respecting and competent physician I know would, when asked when
fetal viability was, answer "anytime from 1 to 36 weeks". That would
be tantamount to malpractice. "Viability" has survived charges of "vagueness"
steadily ever since the 1976 Supreme Court case _Planned Parenthood of 
Central Mo. v. Danforth_, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788. 
How the hell do you suppose the term could be considered non-vague if 
physicians can't place the probable range of viability any closer than
"1 to 36 weeks", Galen? I defy you to cite a case where a 1 week zygote
has been removed from a uterus and survived. In fact, I defy you to cite
any case where a first-trimester z/e/f has been able to survive outside
of the womb for more than a few minutes. Your inability to do so will make
a complete mockery of your "1 to 36 weeks"...

>Darn, Kevin, you're ranting more than you used to and making even less
>sense than you did last year (if that is possible).  You are even getting
>confused at who you are ranting at.  You've mistaken at least too others
>for me that I know of.  

That's "two", not "too", I assume, and you're wrong -- I've accidentally
called Gordon "Galen" twice, which is not the same thing as "two others".
It's "one other, two times". I think I sometimes type "Galen" instead of
"Gordon" because a) there are some phonetic similarities between the two
names (same number of syllables, same beginning and ending phoneme), and
b) because Gordon sometimes comes close to contentless ranting, and that 
reminds me strongly of you. As long as I'm addressing _content_, rather
than personality, what does it matter that I occasionally type the wrong
name, Gordon?
      ^^^^^^ 
       Heh

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion