From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:11:18 GMT

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

>In article <C00L3K.HwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>> Since it is the *pro-choice* reasoning he is
>> saying must condone infanticide, his (Doug's) beliefs can not 
>> be used to back up his argument when it has been repeatedly 
>> shown that many pro-choice positions *can* and *do* distinguish 
>> between the born and the unborn and some can even disallow 
>> infanticide and allow late-term abortions without any
>> inconsistency.

>Oh, I agree.  But these pro-choice arguments are often based upon
>factual differences between "the born and the unborn" which carry 
>no moral weight in themselves.  Pro-choicers have stated that
>the child is inside the woman, which is a fact.  Why does this
>fact carry moral weight?   The child is a member of the human
>species, but wouldn't you claim that this fact carries no moral
>weight in itself?  

Yes, I would argue that being human has no moral weight in itself.

Yes, some pro-choice positions use the obvious fact of the position of the
fetus as a moral weight (bodily autonomy argument) in itself.  I don't care
for most bodily autonomy arguments, as stated, and instead put the moral
weight on the personity of the creature (fetus/child/etc).  Besides, you
basically threw out BA arguments when you started this thread, concentrating
on personity arguments for pro-choice since you thought you had totally refuted
all the others.

My position is based on personity (my term) and I argue that the point at
which personity begins is birth.  The reason for the difference is the massive
explosion in the complexity of sensory information available, and in the sort
of interaction that is possible.  Whether or not you agree with my arguments
does not change my position, and unless they can be completely refuted I can
continue to argue them; thus I do not *have to* condone infanticide, since I
can argue for abortion (late term) and still argue against infanticide.

On the other hand, if newborns are not "people" why must infanticide be wrong?

If it could be proven that even newborns are not "people" prior to some age
then my position would give them less moral weight than adults.  However, even
then I could argue against most cases of infanticide by invoking the moral
weight of all people that have had contact with the infant.  On the other hand,
if it could be proven that a fetus is a "person" at 6 months (or whenever) then
I would argue against abortions after that time; or argue against the alleged
"proof" if I am not convinced.

>You can choose to base your pro-choice arguments on facts
>which carry no moral weight.  But then your argument is 
>no less arbitrary than an argument based entirely upon 
>the species membership of the child.  

My arguments *are* based on what you call "moral weight".  Perhaps you just
don't partition the "moral weight" by personity, but instead use some other
determining factor such as species membership or "soul" containment.

>>-Rob

>Doug Holtsinger

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion