harold@hp-pcd.UUCP (03/07/84)
<this line intentionally non-informative> Again, I repeat the question "What constitutes being human?". This IS a fundamental issue in the abortion debates. Why? Simple. *IF* the fetus is NOT human, then the woman can exercise her right over her own body without censure by anyone. However, *IF* the fetus *IS* human, the woman's "right over her own body" *CAN AND SHOULD* be limited by LAW to protect the human-fetus's right to "life, liberty, etc.". Thus, again, I ask the question: What is Human??? Harold !hplabs!hp-pcd!harold
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (03/19/84)
We have seen many articles in net.abortion addressing the following questions: Is the fetus a human? When should the fetus be considered a human? These are interesting but academic questions. They should not be the focus to our discussion. The real question that we should address: Who has the right on another person's body?. Does a person have a right over his/her body? In most cases society answers affirmatively to this question. Society does not interfere when people smoke themselves to death with cigarettes. We don't have prohibition laws, though alcohol is responsible for many premature deaths. These self inflicted abuses are considered a private matter even if the abuser is a pregnant woman. Yet, the rule of non-intervention and privacy do not seem to apply to abortion. The anti-abortion movement claims to have the right over the bodies of others. Anti-abortionist imply that from the moment of conception the fetus is human, and thus entitled for the protection of the law. However, they go one step further, they require that the pregnant woman's body should provide the protection, even if this conflicts with the wishes of the pregnant woman. Well, if society wishes to protect the aborted fetus's life, society should find the solution to the problem, a solution that does not violate the right of a woman to control her body. An example of a solution that will not violate a woman's right over her body: Transplanting the fetus in an artificial womb, or in the womb of a (willing) surrogate mother. The fact that society cannot provide an alternate womb at the present time should not imply that the burden of the solution should be imposed on the pregnant woman. Abortion should be a moral rather than a legal issue for the pregnant woman! The real abortion problem is that some members of society wish to impose their moral and religious codes on others. They refuse to acknowledge the fundamental right of a woman over her body when this right applies to abortion. Let us remember that the dispute between pro and anti abortionists is asymmetrical. Those who are pro-choice want only to have the right over their own bodies. They do not tell the anti-abortionists what they should do with their bodies. On the other hand, the anti-abortionists claim to have the right to decide for others what they should or should not do with their bodies! -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/21/84)
[from Yosi Hoshen] > We have seen many articles in net.abortion addressing the > following questions: Is the fetus a human? When should the fetus > be considered a human? These are interesting but academic > questions. They should not be the focus to our discussion. The > real question that we should address: Who has the right on > another person's body?. Why are these questions only academic? Please give us a good reason. Don't just brush them aside. I think the questions are fundamental. > Does a person have a right over his/her body? In most cases > society answers affirmatively to this question. Society does not > interfere when people smoke themselves to death with cigarettes. > We don't have prohibition laws, though alcohol is responsible for > many premature deaths. These self inflicted abuses are > considered a private matter even if the abuser is a pregnant > woman. Yet, the rule of non-intervention and privacy do not seem > to apply to abortion. The anti-abortion movement claims to have > the right over the bodies of others. That last sentence is a sweeping generalization. Don't you think it deserves a little qualification? I don't think that abortion can be thrown into the same category with a woman's right to smoke or drink during pregnancy. First, is the intent behind the woman's actions an intent to kill (or even harm) the fetus? Granted, the woman is being irresponsible, but no one really intends to do harm to themselves or the fetus by smoking or drinking. (i.e. that is not the intended result, they smoke and drink for other reasons.) Second, such "abuse" does not *invariably* cause great harm to the fetus or the mother. If it did, we might be justified in outlawing those practices. I suppose smoking and drinking while pregnant could be considered child abuse or endangerment. But nothing can really be done about it. While it is in the womb the child can't be taken away from the mother and put in protective custody like we do with parents who abuse their born children. On the other hand, the object and intent of abortion is to kill the fetus. (So enters in the questions you would brush aside: Is the fetus a human with a right to live?) > Anti-abortionist imply that from the moment of conception the > fetus is human, and thus entitled for the protection of the law. > However, they go one step further, they require that the pregnant > woman's body should provide the protection, even if this > conflicts with the wishes of the pregnant woman. Well, if > society wishes to protect the aborted fetus's life, > society should find the solution to the problem, a solution that > does not violate the right of a woman to control her > body. An example of a solution that will not violate a woman's > right over her body: Transplanting the fetus in an > artificial womb, or in the womb of a (willing) surrogate > mother. The fact that society cannot provide an alternate > womb at the present time should not imply that the burden of > the solution should be imposed on the pregnant woman. > Abortion should be a moral rather than a legal issue for the > pregnant woman! Rights are always balenced by responsibilities. I have the right over my body--to swing my fist where ever I want to--but that right ends where the body of another begins. The fetus is not just another part of the woman's body (like her arm or leg) it is a body in its own right. Another thing is that the couple has exercised their sexual perogative. A natural part of sex is procreation. I am not saying the procreation is the only (or even the primary) purpose of sex, but it is a part of it. Sex is not on the same level with any other human pleasure. It is special--with an inherent result of sometimes producing a human life. The way I see it, the pro-choice position seems to imply that people ought to be able to treat sex like any other pleasure--as if it had nothing whatever to do with procreation. This doesn't make sense. It just isn't that way. And wanting it to be dosen't make it so. I would say to both the man and the woman who wany to treat sex this way, "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen". Putting an end to human life, or denying its existence as a result of the exercise of our sexual freedom, is not acceptable. We have responsibilities for the choices we make. > > The real abortion problem is that some members of society wish to > impose their moral and religious codes on others. They refuse to > acknowledge the fundamental right of a woman over her body when > this right applies to abortion. Let us remember that the dispute > between pro and anti abortionists is asymmetrical. Those who > are pro-choice want only to have the right over their own bodies. They can have it... Do what they want to with their *own* bodies. But the right does not extend to taking the life of another. > They do not tell the anti-abortionists what they should do with > their bodies. On the other hand, the anti-abortionists claim > to have the right to decide for others what they should or > should not do with their bodies! > -- I cannot help but think that this type of argument is a smoke screen. You say we shouldn't be talking about whether or not the fetus is a human or not. Why? Because it admits the possibility of another "body" being involved here, and your argument does not take that into account? Paul Dubuc
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/22/84)
I think the question of control of one's body vs life of somebody else can
be worded in the following way:
Does the "state" have the right to force a person to lend part of their body
to save someone else's life?
If we accept this right of the state in the case of abortion, then to be
consistent we must accept it for other cases such as donations of blood,
bone marrow, or certain organs.
I will now turn the tables and ask pro-lifers (people who believe that the state
has this right) the very same question that they love to ask pro-choicers:
"where does one draw the line?"
I think that the state's withdrawal of people's right to control their own
bodies is as potentially dangerous for society in general as is the state's
withdrawal of protection of all life. I think that what all this boils down
to the question: what is more important, the right to live or the right to
control our own bodies? no matter which one we choose, we lose, so it is
just a question of determining how we want to lose.
As far as I am concerned I prefer to die because somebody will not give me
part of their body I need to survive rather than live with the knowledge
that at any time in my life I will be forced to give up some part of my
body for somebody else's sake.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleylaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/23/84)
Sophie, your argument about the state and bone marrow is specious. *If* the fetus is a human being, then an abortion is killing a human being. And te state already prevents you from killing me, why should these rights not be granted to a humn being simply because it has not been born yet? The state doesn't demand that we save others by giving them marrow transplants, but then an abortion is not just a failure to provide something -- it is an action, not an absence of one. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (03/23/84)
Any one who thinks he has absolute rights over his body should try to check into a hospital to have a non-diseased limb removed. The consequences will be quite amusing.
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/24/84)
I do not think it is obvious that even if the fetus is a person (it is human
obviusly) that its right to life gives it the right to live in another person's
body. As I pointed out earlier, there are cases where people's right to their
own body is stronger than other people's right to life. Donating blood, skin,
marrow, organs right now is not enforceable even if the person needing the
donation will die if he/she doesn't get it. Why should we enforce the lending
of wombs, but not the donation of blood? Blood donations are less taxing and
less dangerous for the donor than womb-lending is, and the receiver is certainly
a person yet society considers that in this case the rights of the donor to keep
his/her own blood is more important than the rights of the receiver to live.
Seriously, what is it about wombs that make them public property when no other
parts of the body are?
If wombs become public property, what is to stop people from using women as
breeding machines by rape and forced insemination? what is to stop society
from declaring which wombs should not be used for breeding and enforce sterili-
sation of some women? If you think those questions are far-fetched, you are
wrong, they are not. Some pro-life groups advocate the banning of abortion
even in cases of rape. If this position was turned into law, any man who wanted
a child with a woman could simply rape her and voila!! Of course if she
mannaged to get him convicted, he might not get to see the child, but if the
man happened to be the woman's husband there is a great chance that he wouldn't
get convicted since rape of one's wife is often not considered to be rape by
many law systems.
As far as forcible legal sterilisation for certain groups of people goes, this
already exists: thousands of retarded or semi-retarded women or women with
mental disorders are sterilised against their will and "for their own good"
every year in America. The founder of the IQ test, whose name escapes me right
was also pushing for mandatory sterilisation of "inferior" groups, such as
blacks. His proposal was taken quite seriously by the powers that be at that
time, but was never passed into law. The nazis (yes, them again) also enforced
sterilisation of people coming from "inferior" races. This of course pales in
front of the other atrocities that were committed by the same regime.
There are also other signs of the publicisation of uteruses: even though
sterilisation is enforced on certain groups of women, voluntary sterilisation is
often not admitted. Many doctors refuse to sterilise women who have not had at
least three children, "for their own good". I don't know whether this has been
passed into law, but I do know of one case of a friend of a friend of mine who
wanted to be sterilised because she was the carrier of some disease. In all of
Ontario, she did not manage to find a doctor or an agency that accepted to
perform her sterilisation.
No, the abortion problem is not a one-issue problem. There is more to it than
simply determining whether fetuses are persons. The question of what rights
women have over their own body, whether the fetus is a person or not is as
important as determining the first one. This question of control over one's
body are as far-reaching as the question of fetuses' right to life and it cannot
be waved away so simply. Why try to simplify a problem that is complicated?
why try to find a right and a wrong when there are no such things, but simply
a gradation of more or less right things and more or less wrong things?
why try to solve universally a problem that is personnal?
Pretending in the face of evidence that complicated things are simple is just an
act of bad faith.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleyix192@sdccs6.UUCP (03/26/84)
From: hp-pcd!harold Mar 21 07:57:00 1984 > Again, I repeat the question "What constitutes being human?". This IS > a fundamental issue in the abortion debates. Why? Simple. *IF* the > fetus is NOT human, then the woman can exercise her right over her own > body without censure by anyone. However, *IF* the fetus *IS* human, > the woman's "right over her own body" *CAN AND SHOULD* be limited by > LAW to protect the human-fetus's right to "life, liberty, etc.". Give me a break! People have their own opinions, but not everyone's opinion is equal in everyone's case! When a woman is trying to get an abortion, there are three main opinions - the law, the woman's, the fetus's. The pro-choicers and pro-lifers are mainly like news reporters, congregating around a personal issue to see if they can use it to their benefit, saving another human life for the good of the world or proving again that choice and freedom will rule forever (slightly exaggerating and typecasting, but it makes a good image). The woman doesn't want the fetus. The fetus (I would assume) doesn't want to die. The law for abortion is still under debate, so I won't mention a standing, but it is important; if it says don't, you don't or you are taking the law into your own hands, the exact thing laws were made to prevent! Back to abortion, let's count the law out for the moment because though it in some states and cases it allows abortion, it's under debate and not very permement. So, You have a woman, pregnant, wanting an abortion. Abortions generally don't kill the mother, so the woman would live if she went through with it. Abortions are generally sucessful, so the fetus would die.
ix192@sdccs6.UUCP (03/26/84)
From: hp-pcd!harold Mar 21 07:57:00 1984 > Again, I repeat the question "What constitutes being human?". This IS > a fundamental issue in the abortion debates. Why? Simple. *IF* the > fetus is NOT human, then the woman can exercise her right over her own > body without censure by anyone. However, *IF* the fetus *IS* human, > the woman's "right over her own body" *CAN AND SHOULD* be limited by > LAW to protect the human-fetus's right to "life, liberty, etc.". Give me a break! People have their own opinions, but not everyone's opinion is equal in everyone's case! When a woman is trying to get an abortion, there are three main opinions - the law, the woman's, the fetus's. The pro-choicers and pro-lifers are mainly like news reporters, congregating around a personal issue to see if they can use it to their benefit, saving another human life for the good of the world or proving again that choice and freedom will rule forever (slightly exaggerating and typecasting, but it makes a good image). The woman doesn't want the fetus. The fetus (I would assume) doesn't want to die. The law for abortion is still under debate, so I won't mention a standing, but it is important; if it says don't, you don't or you are taking the law into your own hands, the exact thing laws were made to prevent! Back to abortion, let's count the law out for the moment because though it in some states and cases it allows abortion, it's under debate and not very permement. So, You have a woman, pregnant, wanting an abortion. Abortions generally don't kill the mother, so the woman would live if she went through with it. Abortions are generally sucessful, so the fetus would die. The mother wants the fetus to die, the fetus wants to live. If the mother wins, the fetus dies, but if the fetus wins, the mother won't die. But she'll suffer. Now who is to say what's better? Should the fetus live and the mother suffer, or the mother win and the fetus die? The mother will suffer, and know she is suffering, but will the fetus know he is dying? We humanely (?) kill butterflies with alcohol-soaked cotton. Our children do so for their butterfly collection, and we encourage them? Why not? Butterflies are abundant, they don't belong to anyone else, and (non-trivia here: ) they die without pain, without realizing their death. If we can accept and do this to something as beautiful and precious as a butterfly, why can't we do it to a fetus? Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/26/84)
I find the distiction between action and non-action not as obvious as you make
it out to be. If a parent does not provide food to a new-born child and lets
the child die of starvation, that is a non-action but it is also murder, so
why is not the refusal to give bone-marrow, just like the refusal to give food
not murder? because it involves the giving of part of somebody else's body and
somehow somewhere society holds the belief that withholding part of one's body
when it could save somebody else is not murder while withholding something else
that could save a person is murder.
Abortions could be devised in such a way that the embryo could be simply removed
from the uterus without killing it. This would be the refusal to provide
further support for it. However most embryos would die without that support, so
they are often killed in the process instead of letting them slowly die
afterwards. Right now it doesn' make any difference since there is no way that
those embryos could survive outside of the womb, so it is much more simple to
just kill them and them take them out, or take them out killing them rather
than go through all the pains of taking them alive and then letting them die.
It si conceivable though that sometime in the future it might be possible to
have them growing outside the uterus. In this case, abortions will probably
have to be reevaluated so that both the right of the mother not to be pregnant
and the right of the embryo to live can be respected. Right now we have to make
a choice though.
This probably does not answer your question, but then again my bone-marrow
argument was not meant to be THE abortion argument, but merely one of the
arguments to be considered.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleyix192@sdccs6.UUCP (03/26/84)
[] From: ...utzoo!laura (Laura Creighton) > Sophie, > your argument about the state and bone marrow is specious. That's true. I'd consider it a technicality, and moral issues like this one should not be won on technicalities. > *If* the > fetus is a human being, then an abortion is killing a human being. > And te state already prevents you from killing me, why should > these rights not be granted to a humn being simply because it has > not been born yet? Because the fetus has not been born yet, it hasn't gotten the full taste of life. A taste it wouldn't miss, nor worry about, nor suffer for. Because it hasn't been born yet, the fetus is still existing on the sole compliance of the mother. True, a machine COULD take her place, but that's not so important because in a few years we should be able to have a mechanical womb. You, Laura, have lived already. You mean something to this world. If Sophie killed you, she'd be taking something away from this world. But if someone killed a fetus, they'd be taking away a POTENTIAL, not something that already means a lot. Well, other than it was a human being. > The state doesn't demand that we save others by > giving them marrow transplants, but then an abortion is not just a > failure to provide something -- it is an action, not an > absence of one. Ah, yes, but we are also talking future tense here. The abortion or lack of one is not just an isolated action. It has consequences on the future. And what the abortion-requesting woman wants to not-provide is all the money, time, space, and career chances she'll have to give up to raise the fetus. To not provide those things, she needs an abortion. If you ban the abortion, you are taking away someone's choice of not providing an action. A real live, LIVED person will die if we don't provide bone marrow, yet we don't have to. Why should those same rules force us to provide parts of our lives to something that hasen't even lived yet? Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/31/84)
Action and non-action again. No. Nobody is obligated to raise a child which they do not want. There are always orphanages. If you decide to starve your child to death then you have to make a pretty serious decision. Once the child becomes mobile you will have to cage it, or otherwise it will forage for itself. babies (and fetuses) are in a peculiar position in that they cannot forage for themselves and are therefore dependant more-or-less totally on other human beings. Remember that having a child is a responsibility. In raising it you are agreeing (implicitly or explicitly) to shoulder this responsibility. One of the responsibilities is that you will feed the child. If you do not want that responsibility you can eiter put the child up for adoption or hire someone to do that responsibility. There is no agreement of responsibility between you and the bone marrow needer, just as there is no responsibility between you and anybody else' kids. If I am starving my children then, while you might have a moral duty to feed them you do not have a legal one. You may feel that you have a moral duty to give bone marrow to the bone marrow needer as well, but you are not legally obligated to do so. If the fetus is a human being then it does not make sense to say that your responsibility towards it as anoter human being (such as don't kill it, something which we all have as responsibilites towards other human beings) begins when it is born. These responsibilites are the inalienable rights of human beings and should go to the fetus by virtue of the fact that it is a human being. And until it is possible to demonstrate that the fetus is *not* a human being (which will require knowing what is ``human'', something the philosophers are not in agreement upon) one must assume that it is or run the risk of commiting the atrocity of killing another human being. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/31/84)
I don't think that I matter much to ``the world'' at all. I matter to ME, though, and I matter to a few individuals out there. I do not view my worthwhileness as a measure of how much I matter to other people. There have been times when I was fairly well convinced that nobody at all out there gave a damn about me, except me. I may have been wrong in this belief, but even if I were not I believe that my worthwhileness would not have been effected one iota. Thus saying that I ma more worthwhile than a fetus simply because I matter to more people than the fetus does is a mistake. It is *because* I am worthwhile that I matter to certain people, not the converse. I believe that worthwhileness goes with being human. (other things besides human beings are worthwhile, but human beings are by definition.) Therefore, killing a fetus is killing something worthwhile if it is a human being. If the fetus is a human being and the pregnant woman has an abortion believing that it is not, then she has made a mistake. If you do not belive that I am worthwhile then you are making a mistake. It may be easierr to make this mistake in the case of a fetus than in the casee of myself, but the mistake will be the same. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific