From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:11:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.025558.14813@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.042943.4640@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.061712.28416@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec21.003824.21422@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec20.044415.25283@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>In article <BzEy8s.7x8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is kind of funny how it's "okay" to yank a baby out of the womb piece
>>>>>>by piece, yet it's "wrong" to let a newborn die a gentle death from
>>>>>>hypothermia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The subject begs further reflection and dialogue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And it would be nice if you tried to find some facts before the next
>>>>>time you post.
>>>>>Anybody who describes hypothermia as a gentle death is doing a fine
>>>>>job of displaying a severe case of ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>Then enlighten us, O Great One. Is the pain and gruesome violence of being
>>>>hacked to bits comparable to slipping away into permanent hypothermic 
>>>>unconsciousness? We thirst for knowledge.
>>>>
>>>Hypothermia is not a gentle way to die. Ask anybody who has seen it
>>>happen. 
>>
>>RELATIVELY speaking, though, compared to being "hacked to bits", is it not
>>a gentle way to die?
>>
>That would depend entirely on the circumstances Kebbin.
>If you're talking about a real, alive, sentient being being "hacked to
>bits" then perhaps so. 

Mark, you made a general statement about hypothermia being a non-gentle way
to die. My only point is that death-by-hypothermia is NEVER less "gentle"
than death-by-being-hacked-to-bits, which is the original context in which
the word "gentle" was used. Do you or do you not agree with this point?

In the case of an unconcious or non-sentient "victim", we can say that
both forms of killing are EQUALLY "gentle", of course. This observation
is not inconsistent with my point.

>If you are (and I must assume you are, since
>this is talk.abortion...) talking about hypothermia vs some method of
>abortion, then I would say the "hacked to bits" is gentler. For the
>simple reason that the fetus is dead before it is "hacked to bits". It
>can't feel anything Kebbin. Not true of the person who is freezing to
>death.

How is the fetus killed prior to the "hacking", Mark?

>>>As for the "pain and gruesome violence" bit , can you show me
>>>any people who have been so killed? I mean, other the Jeff Dalhmers
>>>victims. 
>>
>>I decline to quibble over "personhood", Cochran. It is true, however, that 
>>some abortion methods (D&C? D&E?) involve, in layperson's terms,
>>"hacking to bits", do they not? That is my only point here.
>>
>Given that the fetus is neither alive at that point, nor capable of
>feeling, what is your problem with this method?

Who said I had a problem with it? I just simply disagreed with your 
statement that hypothermia was a non-gentle way to die. It may be non-gentle
compared to, say, dying in one's sleep, but in the original context in which
"gentle" was used -- being hacked to bits -- I'd say hypothermia was 
undeniably "gentle"...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion