carole@rosevax.UUCP (Carole Ashmore) (10/07/85)
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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. Carole Ashmore
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (10/10/85)
A response to Carole Ashmore: >... 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. ... and the morality of killing any other human does. >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. >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. Yes. Your body is yours. Whose is the fetus? How did the body of the fetus get inside the womb? Except in case of rape, she got there because of something the woman consented to do with her body. The fetus does not take anything against your will. It is because of your will that she is there. Responsibility one's actions is another commonly held tenant of moral code. The man and woman are *equally* responsible for the life of the fetus having been conceived. Sex is the activity by which pregnancy normally comes about. It is a reasonably expected consequence (whether or not it is a desirable one) of pregnancy. (If you were the first one to somehow get pregnant by kissing, then I suppose we could say that your volitional actions had nothing to do with responsibility for your pregnancy). This does not mean that sex has *only* to do with pregnancy, but that you can't take the position that it has nothing to do with it. Let me take an opportunity to deal with an argument that is usually brought against me when I make this point. The analogy is given that injury is often the result of driving a car. It can be a reasonably expected consequence and is definitely not desired, but we cannot say that the driver was always responsible for her injury just because she chose to drive her car that day. This argument seems reasonable on the face of it. But there is a big difference, and that is in the definition of injury. An injury is not an injury only if it is unintended. It is an injury regardless of whether it is intentional or not. Comparing pregnancy to an injury on this basis would mean that women trying to get pregnant are masochists. Since and injury is not defined according to whether or not it was intentional, a pregnancy cannot be called an injury only when it is unintended. >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. But you cleanly place the fetus outside the category of "human being". This is how slavery was justified. It is also the means by which the repression of women is justified in many societies. Don't you think this practice is a little dangerous? >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 donor) 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. ... not to mention how you might have to deal with your own feelings about yourself. (It's a factor, but it's beside the point, I know.) >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? It could be argued, I suppose, that your sister's situation had nothing to do with any action you took or decision you made. Is that true when you become pregnant? Unless you had been raped, it isn't. >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. The fetus isn't using your body without your consent. Something you and a man did put her there. She had no choice in the matter and is innocent of the crime she is being accused of. Your last sentence makes some implied distinctions. If the fetus is rightly human, then we may only persuade people not to kill her. Any other human we may prevent from being killed. What makes the difference? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (10/14/85)
The fetus does not conceive itself. Two other people conceive it. Except
in the case of rape, one can't say 'I had no choice in the matter; this is
being forced upon me'. If the fetus is human, you have no right to make it
leave your body at the cost of its life, since you were one of the people who
put it there and killing it would be a violation of its rights.
If you fire a gun in the general direction of a crowd and one of the bullets
hits someone, you're responsible for the injury done to that person, even if
you didn't mean to hit anybody. This involves, at a minimum, getting medical
care for him/her. With respect to avoiding pregnancy, having sex is similar
to firing a gun: although there are ways to reduce the risk of the activity
(looking to see if anyone else is around <-> using contraceptives), some risk
still remains. Although killing the gunshot victim or aborting the fetus may
seem like 'convenient' ways of dealing with an unwanted outcome, neither is
acceptable on the general principle that people shouldn't pay with their lives
for other people's mistakes.
The points you made only have any applicability in cases of rape. Note that
in the case of rape, the fetus does not force itself upon the mother; rather,
the rapist forces the innocent fetus upon the mother. I think that if a rape
victim gets pregnant by the rapist and has an abortion, the abortion should be
counted as a murder/manslaughter charge against the rapist when he is brought
to trial. (This fits in well with the gun analogy; if someone grabs you and
forces you to squeeze the trigger of a gun, they are responsible for any bad
consequences that result, not you).
-- Thomas Newton
Thomas.Newton@spice.cs.cmu.edukurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/17/85)
In article <464@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) writes: >The fetus does not conceive itself. Two other people conceive it. Except >in the case of rape, one can't say 'I had no choice in the matter; this is >being forced upon me'. If the fetus is human, you have no right to make it >leave your body at the cost of its life, since you were one of the people who >put it there and killing it would be a violation of its rights. > >If you fire a gun in the general direction of a crowd and one of the bullets >hits someone, you're responsible for the injury done to that person, even if >you didn't mean to hit anybody. This involves, at a minimum, getting medical >care for him/her. With respect to avoiding pregnancy, having sex is similar >to firing a gun: although there are ways to reduce the risk of the activity >(looking to see if anyone else is around <-> using contraceptives), some risk >still remains. Although killing the gunshot victim or aborting the fetus may >seem like 'convenient' ways of dealing with an unwanted outcome, neither is >acceptable on the general principle that people shouldn't pay with their lives >for other people's mistakes. You are talking out of both sides of your hat. First you say that except for the case of rape a woman is responsible for conception. Are there no gray levels? Then you start using legal analogies. The law is filled with ideas that address subtle differences in circumstances. It uses concepts such as "intent", "reasonable doubt", "ordinary care", etc. So, let me mix together the two sides of your hat: What if two people did everything within their power not to conceive and their method(s) of contraception failed. From a legal perspective they had no intent, and used extraordinary care to prevent conception. Are they really responsible for circumstances beyond their control? Legally the answer would probably be no.