pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/18/85)
In article <215@rosevax.UUCP> carole@rosevax.UUCP (Carole Ashmore) writes: > Dave Messer gave us a short contribution to the abortion argument > suggesting that we should disallow abortion until we have a consensus > on the issue of whether the fetus in human. I'm too busy to reform > the world this morning, so I'll leave out the diatribe on the > immorality of morality by consensus. Morality by consensus IS often immoral. Blacks were kept separate and unequal due to morality by consensus. However, I should like to point out that we live in a democratic republic. Almost all of our laws including laws concerning murder, theft, drunk driving, and seatbelts are an attempt to enforce morality by consensus. > However, it is long past time > for someone to say that THE MORALITY OF ABORTION DOES NOT ULTIMATELY > REST ON THE HUMANITY OR INHUMANITY OF THE FETUS. Since you say that the humanity of the fetus is not the issue, I would like to assume for the sake of argument, and without proof, that the fetus IS human. > One of the basic tenets of my moral code, and it is one shared ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ > by many people, being based on rather fundamental human psychology, is ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ > that NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO ANY USE OF MY BODY WITHOUT MY CONSENT. Morality by consensus? :-) Sorry I couldn't resist. > This is the principle on which we outlaw slavery, the principle on > which we outlaw rape, the principle that makes us reject medical > experimentation (even in a good cause) without informed consent, etc. > etc. etc. My body is MINE. In a more basic sense, my body is ME. It > does not belong to a government, a husband, a passing stranger with a > gun, a social do-gooder, or a fetus. > > I find the notion of any breach of this moral principle both repugnant > and dangerous. Repugnant because I have a respect for the dignity of > each individual human being, and dangerous because a weakening of this > principle can lead so easily to the type of society where individuals > have no dignity left, but are seen only as means to someone else's > social ends. Does the government have the right to take young men in their prime, force them to go to another land where they are forced to try and kill other human beings, and face a very real possibility of death? I know the draft is no longer used but it is still legal and men are still required to register for it. Also you can be sure that when the next war starts the draft will return. One might say that the draft is immoral and should be ruled unconstitutional, but that leaves us with some disturbing possibilities. WW II was probably the most popular war in US history (i.e. a greater % of the people agreed on the need for WW II then any other war except maybe the civil war). Never the less, I doubt the government could have got enough soldiers to fight without the draft. Without the draft we would have to face the possibility of letting Hitler conquer Europe, conquer North Africa, and kill many more Jews, Gypsies, and Gays, and of letting the Japanese enslave the Philippinos. Our society has decided that there are some things that are so important that at times some of its members (young men) must be required to risk their lives for the sake of society as a whole. If our society values the right to life, what is the difference between requiring some of its members (young women) to take risks to preserve life and requiring some of its members (young men) to take risks in an attempt to destroy life? > The one area where people find the application of this principle most > difficult is the area where a life is at stake, as in the case of > abortion. However, most of us manage. If my sister will die without > a kidney transplant, and I (the only possible doner) refuse, will you > force me? I'm sure you will try to persuade me. You may avoid me in > the future as an inhuman monster, you may write vile letters about me > to the newspapers. BUT, are you willing to use force? Are you > willing to live in the kind of society where the police come to my > house and drag me kicking and screaming to the hospital to 'donate' my > kidney? There is a problem in this analogy in that you have done nothing to cause your sisters kidney failure. I believe that sex (like driving) is a morally neutral act. However, people should be aware that while doing either an accident may occur. There may be a patch of ice or oil on the road or there may be a hole in the diaphragm. If you hit that patch of ice, lose control of your car, hit another car and cause the other driver's kidney to fail, you are responsible. (a driver is required to keep their vehicle under control at all times in all states I know of) No one will come to your house to force you to donate your kidney. But, if that person dies you may be charged with vehicular manslaughter, and the other driver's family may bring a wrongful death suit against you. In the same way if a couple has sex, and the diaphragm has a hole in it, and one of them becomes pregnant. Then I believe they should take responsibility for the life they have created. (I can hear the people now "Ooooh nooo not the 'responsibility' argument again!" :-). I would like to take this opportunity to disarm a few flames and state that IF the fetus is not a live human being then abortion is a very responsible way to deal with the "accident".) > I contend that even granting the fetus full human rights does not > grant it the right to the use of my body without my consent. My right > to the control of my body should be protected by law and this means > legal abortion. Now, beyond the mere legality of abortion, the issue > of the degree of humanness of the fetus is of course quite important. > If the fetus is not human abortion is and should be regarded as a > matter of convenience, a back up method of birth control. If the > fetus is human a woman's decision on whether to abort is a complex and > morally charged one and you would be right in doing all you could to > persuade or shame her into not doing it. I don't believe in shaming. To persuade or to be persuaded is my purpose here. I would like to say that of all the pro-choice arguments the "right to control my body" seems to me to have the most merit, and I have never heard it (seen it?) expressed better then Carole has done here. > Carole Ashmore PS During the last stupid war the government pulled my birthday out of a hat. I got #136. They drafted from 1 to 120. I wish everyone reading this as much luck with whatever form of birth control they use. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk