From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:03:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.130708.13203@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.213140.23135@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan12.171943.27306@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >> 
>> >...I take this opportunity to point out that
>> >much of what the abortion debate is about is the matter of who
>> >is best able to determine what is best for the woman involved:
>> >the state by fiat or the individual woman (with the best advice
>> >she is able to obtain)?  There is a certain arrogance inherent
>> >in the belief that women are unable to make a correct decision
>> >for themselves when they are facing an unwanted pregnancy.
>> 
>> I have no doubt that most if not nearly all women can make the best 
>> decision for THEMSELVES, Dean. What is being questioned here, however, is 
>> whether what's best for an individual woman may or may not be necessarily 
>> best for the collective. After all, it's not just a decision that affects a 
>> woman's body, it's also a decision that affects whether or not the 
>> collective gets a new member. So shouldn't the collective at least get a 
>> voice in the decision?
>
>The logical consequences of your statement are very far-reaching,
>but to keep this as short as possible, the sister to your statement
>is that the collective should then also have a voice in whether
>people have children at all.  The collective, by your view,
>then can order pregnancies and enforce child-bearing, not
>simply prohibit abortion.

Er, where did I say "prohibit"? I said they should have a voice. I would go
so far as to say they may also offer incentives for socially "good" behavior,
and disincentives for socially "bad" behavior, as long as people's fundamental
rights are maintained.

>The underlying philosophy behind choice is the primacy of
>freedom.  Not an absolute freedom for all things at all
>times, but based on the notions of enlightened self-interest
>and the freedom to swing my fist when nobody else's nose is in
>evidence.  

How do we assure that the self-interest is "enlightened", as opposed to 
selfish and short-sighted? 

And what do you say to the pro-lifers who believe that the fetus is a
valuable "nose" in the way of the woman's "fist-swinging"?

>The notion that the decision to bear or not bear
>children is a fundamental freedom not to be decided by fiat
>or the will of the collective.  

I note that you mix up "fiat" and "the will of the collective" in the
same sentence. Not exactly a valid conflation, IMO. The whole idea of 
Democracy is to minimize the number of vital, freedom-affecting decisions 
which are made purely by "fiat", and to maximize the involvement of the
collective in such decisions.

>By what right does the
>collective order that an individual bear children and thereby
>take upon herself the responsibilities and risks associated
>with child-bearing?  Certainly if there were a threat that
>the human race might become extinct, the needs of the many
>might outweigh the right of the one, but no such threat
>exists.

Ah, such an all-or-nothing scenario. If only reality was so simple. No, Dean, 
there are lots of complex, intertwined factors involved here. Danger of 
extinction is merely an extreme exaggeration of those factors. Small 
variations in birth rate can sometimes make sizeable differences in economic
conditions, in social structure, in political composition. I'm not arguing 
that there ARE "compelling interests" for forcing women to continue their 
pregnancies, I'm just saying there COULD BE such compelling interests for 
doing so, _contra_ your assertion that nothing short of imminent global 
extinction could justify the intervention of the collective will into 
individual reproductive decisions.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion