From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:48:36 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Jul21.215735.15272@spool.cs.wisc.edu> 
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- losing patience with DOD) writes:

>>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> There exist underlying reasons why a woman would not want to have a 
>>>> fetus inside her womb -- for example, emotional distress. Why don't 
>>>> these reasons also justify infanticide?  

>>> Well gee, Doug, could it be that once the child is born, the woman isn't
>>> pregnant anymore?  And that the right not to be pregnant doesn't exactly
>>> apply?  

>> You're presupposing that a "right not to be pregnant" exists. I'm asking
>> you to offer a rational justification for that claim. 

> Bodily autonomy.  The same right which prevents me from (for instance)
> justifiably walking over and crazy gluing my hand onto your face.  She has
> the right to remove any unwanted organism or object from her body (if she has
> the means to do so, that is), or even to terminate her own life if that is
> what she wishes.

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.  

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? 

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? 

> 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. 

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. 

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.  

> 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?  
 
>Michael Rawdon


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion