Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:10:19 +0000 From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: M-TH: Abortion and Morality In message <Pine.GSO.3.96.980125192814.28190A-100000-AT-acnet>, Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-pratt.edu> writes >Leo asked: > >> [...] is an abortion for sex selection morally wrong? > >Carrol replied (evasively): > >> [...] your question is empty as a political question. > >Jerry comments: > >Carrol's "reply" is empty as a response to Leo's question. > >Let's start with a fact: abortion *is* in some cases being used for sex >selection. That is by no means an "empty" statement. It is certainly real >enough in India where many bourgeois women are having abortions after >ultrasound testing when it is determined that the sex of the fetus is >(will be) female. Granted it is a fetus -- but, the decision to abort >fetuses with female sex organs and bring fetuses with male sex organs to >term is both a political and a moral issue. I think this is a good challenge, and I think it should be taken on squarely. If you support free abortion on demand then it should include abortion in pursuit of sex selection. This is at the limit point of the rights question and might seem perverse, but my reasoning would be this: If abortions are restricted to prevent sex selection the state assumes the right to act on the behalf of a wider social good against women's choices. Even if that choice is made for bad reasons, the possiblity of a positive outcome is greater if the choice exists than if it does not. Having the right includes the right to do the wrong thing. You can only learn to make good decisions if you exercise you right to make decisions on your own behalf. The idea that the state should prevent women from making choices on the grounds that those choices might be subtley coerced, or made under bad influences is the greater evil. I appreciate that it stretches the point, but a woman's right to choose is a woman's right to choose. To presume that her choices are for the wrong reasons, or that she lacks the ability to make her own choices, means denying her rights. It locates decision-making at an alienated level of the state, and a questionable social good. In Britain it is common for hospitals to refuse scans to asian mothers on the grounds that they are more likely to seek termination of female fetuses. That might be true, but it is still a gross intrusion. In message <CMM.0.90.0.885812854.kbevans-AT-panix3.panix.com>, boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com> writes > > > > > > C. Heartfield, > > > > > Your problem is that society has included the fetus within its >definition of the person. Whether the fetus is inside the womb or born; >whether it is sentient or not; or whether it is genetic kin are all >legitimate demarcations of personhood. The question is what demarcations >society accepts and why. Not true. The law grants no rights to the fetus (at least the English law does not, and I'm pretty sure that the same is true of the US law). Rather the law forbids (some kinds) of abortion. That is not the same thing. At the risk of being offensive, or just misunderstood, the law forbids cruelty to animals, without thereby recognising the rights of animals. In message <Pine.3.07.9801251459.A11144-a100000-AT-login>, Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> writes >On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Robert Malecki wrote: > >> "Autonomous moral reasoning" my ass! As if this issue can be put above the >> institutions that create the moral fabric of society! I doubt this very much >> Justin.. > >I think that people are capable of thinking for themselves and coming to >their own decisions about things that matter. I agree with Julian here. You can argue that the autonomus subject is an historical creation, but not that she is a fiction - not if you want to defend a woman's right to an abortion that is. Pedantically -- James Heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005