NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54886

Text File | 1993-01-09 | 4.2 KB | 88 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu!parker
From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:23:17 GMT
Lines: 76

[e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>First you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
>>>>interference."  Then, in the article I quoted, you attempted to restrict
>>>>"interference" to detrimental effects.
>>>
>>>Yes. Do you wish to argue that "interference" doesn't carry a negative
>>>connotation?
>>
>>[Nobody interfere now; let's let Kevin figure it out for himself.]
>>
>>>>Interference is interference.
>>>
>>>Enlightening.
>>
>>I forgot that you need more hand-holding than most.  I'll spell it out.
>>
>>When you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
>>interference", that was an acceptable definition of autonomy.

>OK.

>>When you then
>>attempted to restrict "interference" to detrimental effects, you no longer
>>had an acceptable definition.

>Huh? Are you talking about the definition of "autonomy", or the definition
>of "interference" now? When I used the word "interference" in my definition
>of "autonomy", I did it with the reasonable expectation that people knew
>what "interference" meant. Apparently they didn't. So I clarified the
>meaning of "interference". I have in no way abandoned or modified the wording
>of my definition of "autonomy" -- I've only clarified one of the key terms
>therein for the benefit of the audience.

>>Autonomy refers to independence;

>Not my preferred definition. Too vague.

>>freedom from *any* outside interference, whether beneficial or detrimental.

>Interference, by definition, denotes detrimental intervention. How many times
>must I point this out? Given that definition, your definition of "autonomy"
>makes no sense ("freedom from any detrimental intervention, whether
>beneficial or detrimental").

>>Giving a life-saving transfusion to someone who doesn't want one is a
>>violation of their bodily autonomy, even though the effect is beneficial.

>It's not beneficial if they don't CONSIDER it beneficial. There are more
>levels of "beneficiality" than just basic life-preservation, Larry. For some,
>"beneficiality" is conditioned by a religious outlook. It is up to the
>recipient/victim of an invasive medical procedure or the experiencer of an
>internal biological condition to decide whether it's "beneficial" or not.
>Pro-CHOICE, remember? In the case of a mentally-competent adult, I would
>say that any invasive medical procedure, or any internal biological condition
>which is reasonably felt to be "detrimental", is to be considered a violation
>of Bodily Autonomy. But the same doesn't apply to "beneficial" invasions.
>Someone who takes recreational drugs or a woman who has consensual sex does
>NOT have their Bodily Autonomy violated, because, FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW,
>the drug or the penis does not "interfere" with their body, rather, it is
>considered "beneficial", albeit in a hedonistic kind of way.

I think the "real" reason that it does not violate their BA is that they
*chose* to do it, as opposed to someone else chosing it for them.  There are
cases where the choice over BA must fall to someone else--you mentioned
mental incompetence.  It would still be reasonably considered a "violation"
to do something "truly" beneficial if that designated "someone else" did not
agree to it.  I would like to point out that even a viable fetus can not be
considered "mentally competent", and thus can not make its own choices on BA.

>                                - Kevin

-Rob