From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 19:59:33 GMT

<1992Jul23.032608.23504@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <1992Jul22.192708.5295@spool.cs.wisc.edu> 
>rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>
>> It does - as long as it doesn't violate someone else's.
>
>Since the woman also violates the fetus' right to bodily autonomy, 
>why doesn't the woman forfeit her right to bodily autonomy? 

In cases where there is a contention of "rights" it is best if the parties
are seperated until a reasonable compromise can be reached.  Don't you agree?

>>> I think it's reasonable to assume that the alleged right to bodily 
>>> autonomy must include the right not to be killed though dismemberment.  
>
>> Sure - as long as it is possible to detach it from the host woman by other
>> means.  Otherwise, tough kabookies, kid.
>
>But it is possible to detach the fetus from the "host woman" by means 
>other than killing the fetus. The physician can either induce labor, 
>or perform a hysterotomy, which involves a surgical removal of the intact
>fetus. Therefore, the vast majority of abortions which are performed today 
>cannot be justified on the basis of "bodily autonomy".

You're kidding right?  The vast majority of abortions are performed at or
about 8 weeks.  What are you going to do after you extract the thumbnail
sized zygote intact?  Sit there and watch it die?  Cradle it so it knows
it was "loved" before it dies?  In case you are not aware we have no
current technology that will support an 8 week fetus outside of the womb.

>> Sure, you certainly have the right to *try*.  Of course, if you had really
>> pushed me overboard, in all likelihood I would try anything to save myself,
>> regardless of its consequences to you.
>
>Would you have the right to authorize third parties to try anything to
>save yourself from drowning, regardless of its consequences to me? 

Sure, if he yells for help and others see you trying to drown him they may
take it upon themselves to rid themselves of your harmful influence.

>If so, then would the fetus have the right to receive assistance from
>third parties, regardless of its consequences to the woman involved?  

If it can yell for help, sure.

>>> Or what if you tried to grab hold of my arm -- would I have the right
>>> to remove your hand from my arm and let you drown, even if I had pushed
>>> you overboard? 
>
>> Sure.  Why shouldn't you?
>
>But isn't that murder? 

No, the act of remving the hand could be considered survival.  The act of
pushing someone overboard could be seen as attempted murder.

>> [...]
>>> If the fetus enjoys the right to bodily autonomy, then it cannot be
>>> killed by others.
>
>> As long as it is not violating THEIR bodily autonomy.
>
>Since the fetus is not violating the abortionist's right to bodily
>autonomy, the fetus cannot be killed by the abortionist. Is that what
>you really want to say?  

What a laugh.  How do you come up with these convoluted illogical
extrapolations?  Since a cancerous tumor is not violating a doctors right
to bodily autonomy he has no right to remove it from a person's body.
Right?  You are responsible for the logical conclusions of your
statements, David.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.