From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:33:55 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec23.212832.10957@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes to Muriel
Nelson:

>> In article <1992Dec23.013411.7322@ncsu.edu>
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>>>and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
>>>from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
>>>facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
>>>between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term 
>>>fetus.
>
>> Doug, you've just asserted that there is no '*moral*
>> weight' involved in posing a possible threat to a woman's 
>> life.
>
>He has?!?  Where?  He's talking about the existence of a
>"moral difference between killing a newborn infant and killing
>a late-term fetus."  The interesting kernel of this debate is
>the fact that some might conclude that there is no such moral
>distinction, apart from the involvement of other persons.  Perhaps
>you'd be interested in addressing this.

The mother is the other person involved here.  While DODIE likes to
use language that suggests he only wants to compare the lives of
/z/e/f/s and newborns, his real agenda involves passing legislation
that would force women to bear unwanted pregnancies.  I hope it is
manifestly obvious to you that such legislation, based on DODIE's
alleged moral equivalence between late term fetus and newborns, would
cause a threat to the lives of women.

>> If you are in a charitable mood this holiday
>> season, perhaps you could share with us the true details
>> of what women have done to you, to cause these hateful
>> feelings.
>
>Hateful feelings.  Hateful feelings.  Oh boy.  The old misogyny
>pre-emptive strike.  Muriel, go ahead and take Doug on.  He ain't
>so bad.  You might find that your intellectual skills are sufficient
>to enable you to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
>And I'm interested in what you might have to say.

While it may not be obvious to you from this post, DODIE advocates a
legislative agenda that restricts the rights of women.  He does this
in many dishonest ways; one of his favorites is to allege that
/z/e/f/s are persons in need of legal protection.  The abortion
situation is the only one where DODIE and his pro-force friends favor
legal requirements that legal persons be compelled to use their bodies
to save another entity.  Many of us who support abortion rights find
it peculiar that none of the entities that would be so protected are
legal persons and most are not viable persons.  Why not protect 5 year
olds by compelling their parents to donate bodily resources to save
them?  Why stop at the parent-child relationship?  Even more
suspiciously (for many of us), all of the legal persons whose rights
would be so severly constricted are women.  This discriminatory effect
is taken by many of us as evidence of, to put it kindly, archaic
attitudes about the role of women.  This is not a preemptive strike;
it is a description about what we believe about advocacy of forced
pregnancy laws.

SJM  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion