NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/47833

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-14 | 7.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!eff!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!rpi!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!mizar.cc.umanitoba.ca!ciit85.ciit.nrc.ca!brandonu.ca!mcbeanb
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:04:44 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 135

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
[famous violinist argument]
>>There are several problems
>>with the connections between this analogy and actual pregnancy.
>>First of all, the argument may only be applied to victims of rape,
>>because in the analogy the victim is forced into the situation.
>
> A red herring. The presence or absence of "force" by a third party or
> parties has no particular bearing on the relative rights and
> responsibilities of the principal parties. The analogy can easily be
> amended, so that the connection was the result of, say, an unforeseeable
> computer glitch, and the basic workings of the analogy, or the result,
> don't change a bit (pun intended).

Glitch or not, the pregnancy comes against the consent of the woman.
If the woman is forced to be pregnant against her will, then I see no
reason why she should personally be responsible for it.  Note that
this also applies to failed contraception (hmmmmm).

>>Second, actual pregnancy does not force a woman to stay in bed the
>>entire nine months she carries the fetus.  There are many discomforts
>>and pains associated with pregnancy, but certainly this tremendous
>>lack of freedom is not the case in pregnancy.
>
> Add to the 9 months of "discomforts and pains" the medical risks associated
> with pregnancy. Add to the 9 months of "discomforts and pains" the hormonal
> and/or nutritional changes which affect the woman in a multitude of negative
> ways. Add to the 9 months of "discomforts and pains" the actual excruciatingly
> painful process of labor and delivery. Add to the 9 months of "discomforts
> and pains" the permanent traces that childbearing leaves on a woman's body.

I did not intend to belittle the rigours of pregnancy, I was just constrained
by space.  The paper would have been clearer had I written a short
book to present all of my amassed ideas appropriately, but I ended up
cutting out massive amounts and still had a paper twice the recommended
length.  My point was that prgnancy does not *immobilize* a woman for
nine months.  Such a situation would essentially cause her life to
stop, and pregnancy is really not that debilitating.

> I think the comparison is more than fair.

But pregnancy does not imprison a woman to bed for nine months.

>>Upon the above analysis,
>>it is not reasonable to conclude that a woman should be morally
>>correct in aborting even a pregnancy that was the result of rape.
>
> I disagree strongly for the reasons presented above.

I only said you couldn't conclude that it was morally correct.  I didn't
say you could conclude it was morally incorrect.  More arguments are
required. Do you still disagree strongly?

[people seeds analogy]
>>This analogy can only be applied to those
>>women who want to abort a pregnacy occurring due to the failure of
>>contraceptive devices.  Why is abortion allowable in this case?
>
> You do not so much make the "consent" argument explicitly, as subtly
> presuppose it when you note that in the Violinist example, the connection
> has been effected by "force". The opposite of being forced to do something
> is to do it voluntarily, of course. As you expand your point about not
> having been "forced", you may find that the contraception/people-seed
> argument begins to more clearly apply to your views.

Thanks for clarifying that.

>>How
>>can you decide to abort a fetus simply because the probability of
>>conception was extremely small?
>
> The point here is not just that the probability was small, but that the
> potential parents consciously TRIED TO ELIMINATE IT ALTOGETHER. Therefore,
> it is not reasonable to impute an intent to conceive, or even negligence.

Mmmhmmm.  Note that I offered no reason to disallow abortion in this case.
Personally (as if I'd ever get pregnant), I would not choose to abort in this
case.  I can offer no reasons why, so I just try to present the rest of my
view to be more persuasive.

>>When engaging in coitus, there is always
>>at least a minute chance of pregnancy occurring, and potential parents
>>should not be able to abort simply because they didn't thiink a pregnancy
>>was possible.
[...]
> Many pro-choicers feel that consensual sex between adults is a fundamental
> human right, and that when reasonable precautions are taken, and somehow
> pregnancy occurs anyway, that there is no social reason to "punish" couples
> for their consensual sex by forcing unwanted parenthood on them.

I suggested no such punishment.  I did suggest fines be laid for each week
after conception they wait to abort, but that was just a thought really.
Wouldn't work in the real world.

> Other pro-choicers point out the fact that, even if sex is not a fundamental
> right, it is nevertheless a fundamental biological drive, so people are going
> to engage in it anyway, and get abortions even if they are illegal, so why not
> legalize it, to protect those women from the horrors of botched back-street
> abortions?

Well, it is legal, and I never made any notion to illegalize it.
[...]
>>     Obviously, a woman has a right to control her body, but should
>>that right override the right to life of even just a potential person?
>
> A potential person is an abstraction. A pregnant woman afflicted by an
> unwanted pregnancy is a concrete reality, and is SUFFERING. Under what
> consistent, just, compassionate moral code would we consider the rights
> of the former to outweigh the rights of the latter?

None other than personal codes.  Each person would be different in their
decisions.

>>I think not.  If the woman's life will be put at significant fatal risk,
>>then her right to life would out-weigh that of the fetus, but these
>>are not common cases.  Suppose a woman were forced to live in the same
>>house as a fetus that was developing in plain view in a bottle on the
>>counter.  Further suppose that the gruesome sight of the fetus caused
>>the woman to have terrible physical problems such as nausea, terrible
>>digestive cramps, and respiratory difficulties.  These problems may
>>be analogous to some of the physical problems of a pregnant woman.  The
>>fetus in the bottle has innocently caused great pain and discomfort
>>to the woman.  If the woman were to slay the fetus, and bury it far away,
>>her problems would be over.  Does her right to control her body allow
>>her to slay an innocent fetus?  No, it does not.
>
> I assume she is not allowed any freedom to cover the bottle up, or to move to
> a different house, or similar "coping" measures, without the fetus dying (?)
> How then is this essentially different from the Violinist analogy? And why
> should the result be any different than for that analogy?

Idaknow...  Just thought it up a year ago and thought it was neat.

Brian McBean  -  [e-mail]