From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 24 Dec 92 22:25:56 GMT
Organization: Boulder CO

>    = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>   = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
dh>  = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>bk> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>dh>  = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
========================================================================
>dh> Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
>dh> 
>dh> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
>dh> demand must argue that the child should not be considered
>dh> as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants
>dh> are not persons, since there is no difference between a
>dh> late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers
>dh> must condone infanticide.
========================================================================

>bk> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
>bk> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>

dh> There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
dh> and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
dh> from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
dh> facts.  

>> All fetus' (of any type) are *inside* a woman VS. all infants are 
>> *outside* a woman.  (ie. major physical difference) 

>That is a physical, factual difference, but it has not been 
>demonstrated to be a moral difference. 

OK, so you admit there's a physical difference.

--------------------
>> because a (late-term) fetus is literally *inside* a woman, 
>> it is infringing on that woman's bodily autonomy to a degree that
>> is *obviously* far beyond any infringement an infant is capable of.
>> (ie. major moral difference) 

>Why is the child infringing on the woman's bodily autonomy,
>and not vice versa?  Why aren't they both infringing on 
>each other's bodily autonomy? 

OK, so you admit there's a moral difference.

--------------------
>> because a (late-term) fetus is literally *inside* a woman, 
>> it poses a *real* threat on that woman's life & health to a degree
>> that is *obviously* far beyond any threat an infant is capable of.
>> (ie. major physical & moral difference) 

>And the presence of the woman can sometimes pose a real
>threat to the child's life and health.  Conditions like
>Rh incompatibility, or the woman's abuse of drugs and
>alcohol, can kill the child.  Under these circumstances,
>there's far more threat to the child than to the woman,
>and the child would then be entitled to "abort" the woman. 

OK, so you admit there's a physical and moral difference.

--------------------
>> Consequently YOUR WHOLE "Pro-choicers must condone infanticide" ARGUMENT 
>> IS RENDERED INVALID because it *requires* your casual "no difference" 
>> assertion to be true when in fact this assertion can easily be called 
>> into serious question with minimal effort.

Can you bring youself to admit that your argument AS STATED in invalid?
You might as well, it's pretty obvious to everyone else.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion