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