Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Who has the right over our bodies? Message-ID: <2050@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Mar-84 17:04:52 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.2050 Posted: Tue Mar 20 17:04:52 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Mar-84 03:31:46 EST References: <581@ihuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 101 [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