From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:36:40 GMT

In <BzF13M.9Cx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>Pro-choicers will often argue that even if the child is 
>>considered to be a person, the woman should still have the 
>>right to separate herself from the child, and that this 
>>right stems from the so-called "right to bodily autonomy",
>>or the "right to bodily privacy".

>True. However, most pro-choicers will argue that a fetus can't be considered
>a person after only 6-9 weeks of gestation, when most abortions take place.
>There are many arguments for this, most of them having to do with a lack of
>higher-level brain activity. Most feti won't start dreaming until 20 weeks
>after this period!!! I myself do not agree that a fetus should be abortable
>after REM sleep begins (ie in the third trimester), but I have seen pro-choicers
>do this.

REM have been recorded at 17 weeks.  Source: S. Levi, Brugman University
of Brussels, _American Medical Association News_, Feb. 1, 1983.

>>This right of separation does not lead to an unrestricted 
>>right to abortion, since most abortion procedures directly
>>violate the child's "right to bodily autonomy".  

>True. Again, however, this right is not there until the fetus has gained
>personhood, which from all the evidence I can gather isn't until the third
>trimester!

You've been looking at the wrong evidence.

From my recent attempted post [has anyone seen it on their boards?]
"Neuroscientist(s) versus the World-Enigma, Part 2":

During the sixth week: reflex responses can be elicited.
     -- James Blake Thomas, _Introduction to Human Embryology_, Lea & Febiger,
     Philadelphia, 1968, pp. 174-176.

At "40-odd days": Brain waves can be detected and recorded.
                                  - H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG,"
                                   JAMA, Oct. 12,  1964, p. 113.

At 6-8 weeks: the embryo moves actively in the amniotic fluid.  Here is 
a remarkable testimony by P. E. Rockwell, M.D., Director of
Anesthesiology, Leonard Hospital, Troy, NY, in the U. S. Supreme Court case
Markle v. Abele, 72-56, 72-730, p. 11, 1972:
         Eleven years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured
     tubal pregnancy (at two months), I was handed what I believed to
     be the smallest human being ever seen.  The embryo sac was intact
     and transparent.  Within the sac was a tiny (one-third inch)
     human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid,
     while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord.  This tiny
     human was perfectly developed with long, tapering fingers, feet,
     and toes.  It was almost transparent as regards the skin, and the
     delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the
     fingers.
         "The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac
     approximately one time per second with a natural swimmer's
     stroke.  This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and
     drawings of 'embryos' which I have seen, nor did it look like the
     few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously
     because this one was alive.
         "When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its
     life and took on the appearance of an embryo at this stage (blunt
     extremities, etc.)."


    The end of the eighth week marks the point where embryologists switch
over from calling it an embryo to calling it a fetus.  At this time all the
organs and bodily systems are in place, including the central nervous
system.  The fetus looks more like one of the aliens in the film _Close
Encounters of the Third Kind_ than the human beings we see every day, but it
could not be mistaken for the fetus of any animal except an ape.  It is
about 3 centimeters long and weighs two to three grams; but the small size may
be deceptive: a newborn red kangaroo, when it crawls unaided into the pouch of
its adult-human-sized mother, weighs only about three-fourths of a gram and
is, on the whole, no more highly developed--nor is it any more motile,
judging from Dr. Rockwell's testimony above.
	[For the information on kangaroos in the preceding paragraph, see
        Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe, Life of Marsupials, American Elsevier, 1973, pp.
        56-57]

In the ninth week, the fetus "will bend his fingers round an object in the
palm of his hand."                - Valman and Pearson, British Med. J., 
                                  Jan. 26, 1980.

In the eleventh week, the face and all parts of the upper and lower
extremities are sensitive to touch.  
                                  - Reinis & Goldman,  The Development
                                    of the Brain,  Thomas Publishers,
                                    1980, p. 232.

By the end of the 13th week, the entire body surface except for the back and
the top of the head, are sensitive to touch. [ibid.]



>>But since both parties are assumed to be "persons", with 
>>presumably an equal right to bodily autonomy, 

>Again, this is not the case. See above.

Would you agree this to be the case after viability?

>This is a very difficult argument to make; I doubt many ProChoicers would
>choose to make it. Most of them have gone the easier, MORE REASONABLE route
>of saying that a fetus is not really a person until some point during pregnancy
>or until the time of birth. Most Choicers say a fetus is not a person until
>birth. I myself say a fetus is not a person until the third trimester. Most
>AntiChoicers say a fetus is a person at the time of conception. This is where
>we disagree, fundamentally.

See my previous question.  If your answer is Yes, expect to be called
anti-choice by Keegan, and don't expect me to stick up for you.  I did
stick up for Jammer Jim and Elizabeth Bartley, but that is because they
did not show the fondness for "AntiChoice" that you are displaying.

>>
>>Alternatively, pro-choicers might say that the woman should 
>>not bear any risks during the abortion procedure since her
>>bodily resources are being used by the child, and the child
>>is endangering the woman's health.  

>Nobody is saying this. Nobody can make this the case. Again, abortion is
>a medical procedure with associated risks. Also, I doubt too many AntiChoicers
>will want to restrict abortion for women who will suffer massive health 
>problems if they become pregnant. Lastly, I know of very few pregnancies where
>a fetus poses this sort of burden on a woman. Granted, pregnancy is DIFFICULT,
>and labor is VERY DIFFICULT AND TRAUMATIC, but in most cases pregnancy is not
>severly life threatening. Very few ProChoicers use this self-defense argument,
>because it is (again) easier and more reasonable to argue that a fetus is
>not morally, ethically speaking, a PERSON until some point well after conception

How many pro-choicers have you read on talk.abortion?  The self-defense 
argument keeps coming up all the time.

>>This position implies that newborn infants 
>>are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
>>late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
>>must condone infanticide.

>	Obviously this is where we disagree most. Firstly, most pro-choicers
>(as I have stated several times before) say a fetus is not a person until
>birth, or maybe earlier during the third trimester. Thus, there is a GREAT
>DEAL of difference between a late-term fetus and an infant, ethically
>speaking. 

I still haven't figured out what the usual definition, or even "Killer"
Tiller's definition of "late-term" is.  I would like to see the term used
for any fetus past the earliest point of a prematurely born child 
surviving.

>	Secondly, for those of us who do not support late-term abortions
>(such as myself), even if morally and ethically there is no difference
>between a late-term fetus and an infant for us, there is a great deal of
>difference between an infant 6-9 weeks old, when most abortions take place,
>and a fetus 30-40 weeks old, which is what you're talking about.

Not as much as you seem to think.  See above.  BTW viability has been
pushed back to 19-20 weeks, with roughly half of those born at 24 weeks
surviving, and about a quarter showing no long-term disability as a 
result of the premature birth.

>	Given these facts, it is not at all inconistent for a ProChoicer
>to support abortion-on-demand and decry infanticide. 

Are you suffering from instant amnesia?  What about abortion-on-demand
for fetuses 30-40 weeks old?

>	Doug, I have a feeling that many reasonable people in the ProLife
>community are getting tired of these attempts on your part to SCARE people
>into a ProLife stance,

On the other hand, you may be suffering from the mental fatigue involved
in wearing a Mr. Nice Guy mask.  Is this last sentence of yours evidence
that it is starting to slip?

> through graphic descriptions of abortion and flimsy
>arguments that the ProChoicers must condone some attrocity in order for
>their arguments to remain consistent.

BTW, Lost Boy, did my barrage of half-a-dozen or so follow-ups to your
fetal tissue thread ever make it to your boards?

>***************************************************************
>* My mother CHOSE to have me. That's how I know she loves me. *
>*                              -Karen Uru                     *
>***************************************************************

Karen Uru obviously was never told, "Be grateful I had you.  I could have
aborted you, you know."  [To the accompaniment of a tale of woe of
how much easier mom could have had it if she had remained childless.]

Peter Nyikos