From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:03:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.235313.12852@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> If you use intelligence as a criteria for personhood status, then 
>>>> the late-term fetus and the newborn infant should have the same 
>>>> personhood status.

>>> You'll get no argument from me there. Now see (2).
>>> They DO have the same personhood status, but they're not full
>>> persons.

>> What is a "full person"? Are newborn infants "half-persons", 
>> or are they "non-persons" who deserve special protection, 
>> like a dog or a cat? 

> I'd probably end up making them non-persons under the law.
> However, since they will eventually BE persons, they deserve
> protection.

Let me see if I understand your position: newborn infants and
late-term fetuses would be non-persons who deserve protection 
from being killed except when their presence infringes on a 
person's health in a statistically significant manner. They 
deserve protection because they will eventually become persons 
(i.e. intelligent beings). 

This means that a severely mentally retarded infant who will never 
become intelligent enough to achieve personhood status would not 
deserve protection from being killed. 

It also means that a zygote deserves the same level of protection 
as a newborn infant since both zygotes and infants will eventually 
become persons. 

>> And how does your position square with the 14th amendment to the
>> Constitution which gives equal protection under the law to all 
>> citizens of the US? 

> I'm following 14th amendment jurisprudence, Doug, at least some of
> the way.

The Constitution currently gives all born "persons" equal protection 
under the law; "persons" includes newborn infants. Would you oppose 
changing the Constitution to give infants less protection from being 
killed than full persons? 

>> I think a "person" should be defined as an entity who possesses the
>> right to life, not necessarily those who possess certain civil rights. 

> But that's not the way it's defined, not legally.

It's my definition.

>>> I'm prepared to PROTECT it as a State decision provided that that
>>> protection doesn't infringe upon the woman's health in a significant
>>> fashion.

>> I think you need to define "significant" and "health". I don't see
>> how you will be able to defend your position if you arbitrarily 
>> define "significant risk" as being "X times more dangerous" to
>> the woman's health. How can you possibly defend a particular
>> choice for the value of "X"?  

> Define significant to be statistically significant.
> I.e. you can be confident at say the 95% level that the
> risk is x times more dangerous when x>1.
> I'm interested in certainty, not size.

But you're still picking an arbitrary value to defend your
position -- "95%". What's wrong with "99.9%", or "90%"? I realize 
that "95%" is a fairly common confidence level, but I don't see 
how that particular value can be justified on a moral basis. 

>-Ekr


Doug Holtsinger