From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:23:17 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan06.053233.39629@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan6.024236.23896@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan02.045752.4968@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>First you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
>>>>interference."  Then, in the article I quoted, you attempted to restrict
>>>>"interference" to detrimental effects.
>>>
>>>Yes. Do you wish to argue that "interference" doesn't carry a negative
>>>connotation?
>>
>>[Nobody interfere now; let's let Kevin figure it out for himself.]
>>
>>>>Interference is interference.
>>>
>>>Enlightening.
>>
>>I forgot that you need more hand-holding than most.  I'll spell it out.
>>
>>When you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
>>interference", that was an acceptable definition of autonomy.  

>OK.

>>When you then
>>attempted to restrict "interference" to detrimental effects, you no longer
>>had an acceptable definition.  

>Huh? Are you talking about the definition of "autonomy", or the definition
>of "interference" now? When I used the word "interference" in my definition
>of "autonomy", I did it with the reasonable expectation that people knew
>what "interference" meant. Apparently they didn't. So I clarified the
>meaning of "interference". I have in no way abandoned or modified the wording
>of my definition of "autonomy" -- I've only clarified one of the key terms
>therein for the benefit of the audience.

>>Autonomy refers to independence; 

>Not my preferred definition. Too vague.

>>freedom from *any* outside interference, whether beneficial or detrimental.

>Interference, by definition, denotes detrimental intervention. How many times
>must I point this out? Given that definition, your definition of "autonomy"
>makes no sense ("freedom from any detrimental intervention, whether 
>beneficial or detrimental").

>>Giving a life-saving transfusion to someone who doesn't want one is a
>>violation of their bodily autonomy, even though the effect is beneficial.

>It's not beneficial if they don't CONSIDER it beneficial. There are more
>levels of "beneficiality" than just basic life-preservation, Larry. For some,
>"beneficiality" is conditioned by a religious outlook. It is up to the 
>recipient/victim of an invasive medical procedure or the experiencer of an
>internal biological condition to decide whether it's "beneficial" or not. 
>Pro-CHOICE, remember? In the case of a mentally-competent adult, I would 
>say that any invasive medical procedure, or any internal biological condition 
>which is reasonably felt to be "detrimental", is to be considered a violation 
>of Bodily Autonomy. But the same doesn't apply to "beneficial" invasions.
>Someone who takes recreational drugs or a woman who has consensual sex does 
>NOT have their Bodily Autonomy violated, because, FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW,
>the drug or the penis does not "interfere" with their body, rather, it is 
>considered "beneficial", albeit in a hedonistic kind of way.

I think the "real" reason that it does not violate their BA is that they
*chose* to do it, as opposed to someone else chosing it for them.  There are
cases where the choice over BA must fall to someone else--you mentioned
mental incompetence.  It would still be reasonably considered a "violation"
to do something "truly" beneficial if that designated "someone else" did not
agree to it.  I would like to point out that even a viable fetus can not be
considered "mentally competent", and thus can not make its own choices on BA.

>								- Kevin

-Rob