From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Summary: Sorry, Mike, but in my scenario you may drown.
Keywords: doug rich and mike
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:14:40 GMT
Followup-To: Previous talk
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mine

In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
>of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. I think  
>it's reasonable to assume that the alleged right to bodily autonomy 
>must include the right not to be killed though dismemberment.  

I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
it was autonomous.  Also, looking at your "assumption" in the second part,
if it is correct, then you seem to imply that it is ok to be killed
in one piece.

>Let's explore the concept of bodily autonomy for a moment, using your 
>example about "crazy gluing my hand onto your face". Suppose that you 
>and I were in a lifeboat, and I pushed you overboard. Does my right to 
>bodily autonomy include the right to consciously refuse your attempts 
>to "crazy glue" your hand onto my face" if that were the only means of 
>saving yourself from drowning? 

Yeah, I think so.

>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? 

Even if you didn't push this guy overboard, you aren't obligated to help him.
It's a decision that YOU get to make.  I think he'd appreciate it if you
decided to help him, and that he'd be upset with you if you didn't, but
ultimately you're the one who has to live with the choice that you've made.

>> The "right not to be pregnant" is a form of this right.  She has the right 
>> to remove a fetus from her body if that is what she wishes.  It is (I think)
>> desirable that the fetus not be killed, if possible (i.e., after the point
>> of viability), in the procedure, but if this cannot be avoided, that's too 
>> bad.
>
>It's not good enough to say "that's too bad". I think you know that. 

(Can be avoided==>we have an alternative)
"Cannot be avoided"==>what else you supposed to do?

>If the fetus enjoys the right to bodily autonomy, then it cannot be
>killed by others. Even if you can show that the right to bodily 
>autonomy should apply in the hypothetical lifeboat scenario above,  
>the existence of the fetus' right to bodily autonomy would imply 
>that the vast majority of abortions cannot be justified. 

1)  Yes, bodily autonomy should apply to your lifeboat example.
1.5)  I hold that the fetus does not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy.
      [Gee, therefore it would seem that it is a part of the woman's body,
      something akin to a parasite, I suppose...]
2)  But the fetus does not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy so this leads
    us to...
>If the fetus does not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy, then you 
>must distinguish between the fetus and the mother if you are to 
>deny rights to the fetus. But in doing so, you may wind up denying
>rights to other persons, such as infants or those persons in a coma.  

3)  [2) from above applies], but I'm not sure how we are supposed to make
    a distinction between the fetus and the mother if we just decided that
    we do not have bodily autonomy.
4)  Ok, let's say for kicks that we do distinguish the fetus from the
    mother...  Hey, I'm not entirely clear how we make the jump straight to
    "other persons," and let me tell you, young 'uns (under 18) are denied a
    whole bunch of things.  Also, I'm not entirely sure what kind of rights
    you are referring to for people in a coma.  The right to live, even if
    someone chooses to disconnect the artificial life support?  Well, if
    they can survive on their own, they will.

>> She does not have the de facto *responsibility* to support the fetus'
>> existence (unless, perhaps, she has previously voluntarily and explicitly
>> undertaken that responsibility).
>
>And if she decides to get pregnant, but later circumstances cause her
>to change her mind and seek an abortion, does she have any responsibility
>towards the fetus?  

Perhaps, but she's the one who made all of the decisions, not the state.

>>Michael Rawdon
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger

-Richard