NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/36694

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-15 | 6.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!purdue!yuma!longs.lance.colostate.edu!sa114984
From: [e-mail] (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:08:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <0zwnlb#[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Account)
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Lines: 117

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> ><0zwnlb#[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|> ><v=[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> >|> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|> >|> ><[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> ...
|> >|> >|> Now Steve, I don't know why you think you know what I'm thinking.  In this
|> >|> >|> case you are dead wrong.  I absolutely believe that a fetus is a living
|> >|> >|> human being.  It's just not a person.  And (are you ready for this?) even
|> >|> >|> if it was a person I would support unrestricted abortion upto the time of
|> >|> >|> birth.  You see, the being that the fetus resides in is normally called a
|> >|> >|> 'woman'.  If you'll check your biology books you'll see that she is a
|> >|> >|> human being too.  If you'll check your legal books you'll see that she is
|> >|> >|> a person.  And if you'll check the constitution you'll find that no
|> >|> >|> *person* unconvicted of a crime my be forced into bodily servitude against
|> >|> >|> their will.
|> >|> >
|> >|> >    I do not suggest that the woman be forced into bodily servitude.  I do
|> >|> >assert, however, that she is responsible for the consequences of her behavior on
|> >|> >others, including the living human being in her womb for whose existence she is responsible.
|> >|>
|> >|> And you believe she should be forced into bodily servitude (read: slavery)
|> >|> because of an action she may or may not have taken voluntarily.  Do you
|> >|> also believe that this should be the case for other actions taken by
|> >|> people in other situations?  Car accidents and car insurance come to mind.
|> >
|> >    I believe that if one person puts another person into a dangerous
|> >situation, the former is responsible for the safety of the latter.  I do not
|> >propose that any particular deed must be done or measure taken; but if the victim
|> >dies or is injured, the one who caused it is responsible.
|>
|> And there is no person involved in an abortion except a woman.

    Assuming the fetus is a person, Gordon.  That WAS what the
debate was about, wasn't it?  And you were giving such straight
answers before...

|> >|> >    Gordon, you're a person (I hope).  Suppose I push a button which causes
|> >|> >you to be in my body.  Can I abort you?  Yes or no?
|> >|>
|> >|> Sure.
|> >
|> >    Oh, this is a jewel.  This might be .sig material.  Let me get this
|> >straight: if I do something which causes you to appear in my body I can kill you
|> >at will and you would have no legal recourse?  All this despite the fact that you
|> >neither requested nor granted permission for your body to be put inside mine?
|>
|> Sure.  I'll worry about it happening when you perfect the technology.

    So it's morally right until such time as I can actually do
it.  What a dodge.

|> >    Do you believe, in general, that a person should be responsible for the
|> >effect of their behavior on others?
|>
|> To a particular point, yes.

    Quit equivocating.  Stop the evasions and dodges.  At what
exact point am I not responsible for the effects of my behavior on
you?  In general: at what exact point is a person not responsible
for the direct effects of their behavior on other people?

|> >                                     Or do you think that any consequences of one
|> >person's behavior on another are the responsibility of the one who was affected?
|>
|> Not necessarily.

    Vague.  Not helpful in the discussion.  Abstract.  Give me
a solid answer, complete with if's and's and but's.

|> >And if you accept the latter position, then if I ran you over with a car, why,
|> >that'd be YOUR problem, wouldn't it?
|>
|> Nope.  Well, technically it would be *my* problem because I was run over,
|> but I think that legally you'd better have a damn good reason.

    Ah!  Why would I be responsible for my behavior if I ran
you down, but not if I took you against your will into my body and
then killed you?

|> >    No dodges, Gordon.  Your answer above was simple and beautifully clear,
|> >and I'd be in your debt if you would follow one superb answer with a few others.
|>
|> I try.  However, working for a living kinds cuts down on the length of
|> time one can take to respond to every post fully.  Also, not all answers
|> are cut and dried.  Your exampes have been pretty outlandish so it's kinda
|> difficult to give you a reasonable answer.

    It's not difficult at all if you don't have a hopeless
position to defend.
    If I can take your body into mine against your will, then
you must not have a right to bodily autonomy.  Take away
the right to bodily autonomy and your argument for abortion is
nonsense.  Indeed, all rights become nonsense.  Therefore, you
have already admitted that rights do not exist for practical
purposes and have therefore admitted that a woman's alleged right
to commit abortions does not exist.  Your assertion that a woman
has a right to commit abortions is undercut by your own lack of
respect for the right to bodily autonomy.
    If I do somehow take your body into mine I certainly
cannot kill you unless you previously agreed to allow me to do so.
 You may disagree; but in this case, I think that most
non-radical-pro-legal-abortionists will agree that you go much too
far; that in general one person cannot violate the bodily autonomy
of another by taking that person someplace against their will;
that if they do they cannot then kill that other person.
    It is fairly manifest, in short, that one person cannot
unilaterally violate the bodily autonomy of another, and that
in general a person is responsible for the effects of their
behavior on someone else.  If you accept these two principles,
then a woman cannot abort her child if that child is a person; if
you reject these principles, either or both, you end up with total
anarchy and rights become meaningless and nonexistent.

Steve