From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW and A&I
Summary: Rear-view Windows?  I think not.
Keywords: roe wade abortion autonomy sex
Organization: You see Burke Lee?
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:48:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.163715.12871@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.220341.247412@cs.cmu.edu> (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>Some other article has (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writing:
>>> This is just something interesting I noted when reading the text of the
>>> Supreme Court's decision.  It has been mentioned (at least in passing)
>>> before. While RVW is generally considered as granting women the right to 
>>> choose (and has been treated that way by the laws), it actually (as the 
>>> text is written) does no such thing.  What it does do is prevent the states
>>> from interfering with the DOCTOR's decision vis a vis abortion prior to 
>>> the first trimester etc. etc.
>>>
>>> RVW *as written* does not *seem* to grant the choice to women.  Obviously
>>> that is how it has turned out in practice.  [...]
>>
>> No, you didn't suddenly discover a major flaw in Roe, as you
>> seem to believe.  I can see that you are basing your erroneous 
>> interpretation on a few words in the decision, while ignoring 
>> the lengthy discussion of the right to privacy.  Perhaps you
>> should read the decision again.
>
>I think Mr. Miller's reading of Roe is correct. The Court ruled 
>that the privacy right involved "cannot be said to be absolute",
>and that the state does have an interest in protecting the woman's
>health.

At least her physical health.  An issue that "privacy" would cover,
but does not usually come to mind (I'm very surprised that I haven't
seen anyone talk about it!), is the woman's MENTAL health.  Surely
any kind of pregnancy (carried to term or (spontan./surgic./etc.) aborted)
is extremely trying on her mental health.
People may talk to no end as to when the fetus may be viable, when it
can be considered "alive", when is it safe to do what procedure, but one
of the most difficult factors to assess quantitatively is the impact
it will have on the emotional well-being of the woman.

>I think the key test of the validity of Mr. Miller's thesis is
>whether or not women have the right to self-abort under Roe.  
>Roe allows the states to require licensed physicians to perform
>the abortion procedure; it seems that the state could prohibit 
>non-physicians from self-aborting. 

And how will we enforce it?  Will the police be checking up on all of
our pregnant populace?  For safety's sake, I do see why the state should
have an interest.  (Getting the coroner out is always messy time-consuming
and inconvenient.)  If they do regulate non-physician self-abortion (I
am assuming that RU486 does not fall into this catagory, as well as
spontaneous abortions), they better keep physician-performed surgical
abortions legal.

>The basis for the Court's ruling is the supposition that a first 
>trimester abortion performed by a physician is safer than childbirth,
>and so the state cannot restrict first trimester abortions on the
>basis of protecting the woman's health. If self-induced abortions
>were more dangerous than childbirth, then the state could use that
>as a basis for prohibiting (or restricting) self-induced abortions.

I'd go along with that.  (Reminds me of suicide laws--you can be punished
for attempting the crime, but not actually committing it.)
>
>>Susan
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
==============================================================================
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide

In article <1992Jul28.200857.22006@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.090238.20698@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> (I) write:
>>Somewhere else (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>And in another place (I) wrote:
>>>> Ok, four simple questions:
>>>>
>>>> Pre-infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>>>> Infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>>>> Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>>>> Pregnant Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>
>>> Since you're the one who's promoting the concept of bodily autonomy,
>>> why don't you tell me how your questions should be answered? 
>
>> I'm not going to tell you how those questions should be answered, but I
>> will tell you how I'd answer them.  (Get the distinction?)
>
>Yes, you're not going to tell me the justification for your answers.

No, you don't get the distinction.  What I said is that "I'm not going to
tell [YOU] how those questions should be answered," (ie:  make up YOUR own
beliefs.  Think hard.  Use your brain.  Give an answer), "but I will tell you
how I'd answer them."  (translation [as if it REALLY needed one]:  I will
not tell YOU how to answer, but I will tell you you how I would answer them.)

>> P-i:  No
>> I:  Yes
>> W:  Yes
>> PW:  Yes
>
>Why doesn't a fetus have the right to bodily autonomy?

(Hoo boy, not again)  Because it hasn't been born.  It is still part of
another person.  They (woman and fetus) take up one seat.  They are only
1 entity for tax returns.  One person eats for both of them.  The fetus
can't decide to wander off on it's own.  One person breathes for both of
them.

>Doug Holtsinger
"The Answer Man"

Just wondering, did my other posts make it out of here?


>>>>-Richard
>>Recycle old sigs!
><snigger>
(What, why waste a perfectly useable sig?)
When considering the issue of abortion and "health issues," don't forget
that a woman's mental and emotional well-being are just as important
aspects of her person, as her physical self.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion