home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1 / NN_1993_1.iso / spool / talk / abortion / 54274 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-06  |  1.4 KB  |  36 lines
  1. Newsgroups: talk.abortion
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
  3. From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
  4. Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
  5. Message-ID: <1993Jan6.024236.23896@rotag.mi.org>
  6. Organization: Who, me???
  7. References: <1992Dec30.051334.12145@watson.ibm.com> <1993Jan1.022332.536@rotag.mi.org> <1993Jan02.045752.4968@watson.ibm.com>
  8. Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:42:36 GMT
  9. Lines: 25
  10.  
  11. In article <1993Jan02.045752.4968@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
  12. >In <1993Jan1.022332.536@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
  13. >>In article <1992Dec30.051334.12145@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
  14. >>>In <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
  15. >>>>
  16. >>>>"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
  17. >>>>of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
  18. >>>
  19. >>>Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might not agree...
  20. >>
  21. >>True, but in the context of the article from which you quoted, "beneficial
  22. >>ways" mostly denoted natural gestational processes.
  23. >
  24. >First you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
  25. >interference."  Then, in the article I quoted, you attempted to restrict
  26. >"interference" to detrimental effects.  
  27.  
  28. Yes. Do you wish to argue that "interference" doesn't carry a negative
  29. connotation?
  30.  
  31. >Interference is interference.
  32.  
  33. Enlightening.
  34.  
  35.                                 - Kevin
  36.