[Peace-discuss] Emergency contraception

[C. G. Estabrook]

I don't own my own body, Bob -- I *am* my own body.  The capitalist
metaphor seems to me out of place and even dangerous. (E.g., if I own my
own body, am I open -- perhaps literally -- to eminent domain?)

I'll join you in your declaration for Locke, the Enlightenment, and women
-- I'm sure they'll all be delighted to have our support.  But, as the
tension in your own argument (between kidney and unwelcome guest)
suggests, the fundamental question about abortion is, how many people with
rights are involved -- one, or two?

Best, Carl


On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Bob Illyes wrote:

> I want to second what Susan said, and add a few comments.
> 
> About 300 years ago, John Locke wrote his second treatise on civil
> government, an early and seminal development of the concept of human
> rights, and one which lead to the rights presented in the Declaration
> of Independence and the American Bill of Rights. Locke is sometimes
> criticized for proposing "property-based" rights. But the fundamental
> property he built rights on was the property in ones own body. Since
> women have achieved full citizenship, they also legally own their own
> bodies. It is no more legally correct to demand that a woman be
> powerless to terminate a pregnancy than it is to demand that I be
> forced to give a kidney to save the life of someone I do not wish to
> give it to.
> 
> Let's be clear here- we're arguing not about whether a fertilized ovum
> is a person or not, but about whether a woman owns her own body. Only
> if she doesn't can we properly argue about whether or not her body
> should be occupied by an unwelcome guest. Even if there were consensus
> that a fertilized ovum were a person, which there definitely is not,
> that personhood would give the ovum no claim on another's body.
> 
> I declare for Locke, for the Enlightenment, and for woman.
> 
> Bob
>