From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Hope springs eternal (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:01:54 GMT

>     = frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>b>   = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>b>f> = frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>b>f> Women using birth control have consented to the _risk_ of pregnancy,
>b>f> often along with other medical risks.   That is clearly a choice, and
>b>f> it's clearly the woman's, and/or possibly her partner's, choice. When
>b>f> these risks pay off, who would you say is to blame? 
>b>f> [...]
>b>f> Why do you feel society _owes_ you a second choice?
>b>f> [...]

>b>This type of argument is hopeless.  

>An argument is only hopeless if people can refute it, 
>if they do not understand it, or if they will not listen to it.
>
>Which do you say is the case here?

Probably two or three of these cases. :-)  

What I consider a hopeless argument is;
IF   (1) you know that doing something might cause some undesired result
AND  (2) you do it anyway
AND  (3) the above mention undesired result comes into being
THEN you have no right to do anything but accept the undesired result

EG: 
I drive a car on my own free choosing.  I then get in a car accident.
It's not unreasonable to say that I freely consented to that risk.
I could be refused access to medical help, because I knew the risk.

Basically what this says is that "because you knew the risk" is grounds
for you losing your rights, which is hopeless bull-shit.
Abortion wouldn't be wrong because a women "knew the risk", that'll never fly.
If that's not your argument, fine, but it certainly seemed very similar.

For this type of argument to work in the (anti) abortion context, it is
*essential* that you *explicitly* add the non-trivial modification of:
...
AND (4) getting an abortion would violate the legal and/or moral code that a 
    zygote's right-to-develop supersedes a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
THEN ...
And that's a mighty big & controversial modification.  Basically it's a 
whole new argument: conditions 1,2,& 3 are almost irrelevant in the face 
of condition 4.

It's not a matter of having to accept the undesired result 
BECAUSE YOU KNEW THE RISK,
rather it's a matter of having to accept the undesired result 
BECAUSE THE FETAL RIGHT-TO-LIFE SUPERSEDES AN ADULT'S BODILY AUTONOMY RIGHTS.
Unfortunately most anti-abortion arguments rarely explicitly mention this and
certainly they almost never attempt to establish this.

>[...]
>You know, Brian, it strikes me that if an abortion was always 100%
>fatal for the mother, or for that matter the father, or equally a
>visitor at Disneyworld - then we would be having this discussion 
>about newborn babies, would we not?  How long, do you figure, before
>people would accept the idea of killing a newborn in _those_ circumstances?
>I'd give it three generations, myself.  At first people would laugh at
>the crazies who suggested it, but rest assured that in short order we 
>would have a new word for "newborn baby". ...

I don't buy this at all.  In my view abortion is a balance of rights issue:
woman's indisputable bodily autonomy rights VS. the highly controversial 
fetal right-to-life.  After birth, the woman's autonomy is no longer an issue
and the born baby is no longer a fetus.   Killing born babies is a completely
different issue.  I think it's misguided and/or disingenuous to try to
link these two issues.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion