From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:50:58 GMT


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: 

In article <oealXgC00Uh_A8qGBD@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes
#
##In article <0eaiZKe00Uh748UVho@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis
#<ml3e+@andrew.cmu
##.edu> writes:
##[self-righteousness and included text deleted]
## 
###In the meantime, I would ask anyone thinking about repling to Mr.
###Novak's post  to consider why they would oppose infanticide and would
###yet support a third trimester abortion as described in this post by Mr.
###Ron Bense with Ms. Suzanne Forgach playing the chorus.  In particular,
###why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
###a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus? 
###The fetal idolators claim that abortion is painful to the fetus as a
###reason to oppose abortion.  Yet opposition to infanticide causes yet
###greater pain.
## 
##Supporters of legal abortion usually take this opportunity
##to point out the fact that a third trimester fetus differs
##from an infant in a very obvious way, leaving aside developmental
##differences.  A third trimester fetus is living inside a
##woman and is affecting her health.
## 
#
#Legal reasoning on abortion has also often considered the concept of
#viability.  Third trimester fetuses are usually considered viable.  Why
#magic occurs at birth that suddenly makes killing a bad thing.

I've tried to decipher your last sentence fragment, and I can't.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between a fetus
in utero and an infant ex utero?  

##[more included text deleted]
## 
##Ron wasn't talking about infanticide per se, he was talking about
##euthanasia.  There is a rather large difference between the
##two.  You seem to have them confused.  This makes you look
##rather ridiculous, particularly given your attempts at flaming
#
#Ms. Garvin, I am quite aware of the difference between infanticide and
#euthansia.  I am also aware that the difference can be quite fuzzy.  Why
#can't you be aware that the line between third trimester abortion is
#also quite fuzzy. Its fuzziness is not some plot devised by Mr.
#Holtsinger to upset "pro-choice" arguments.

The line between a fetus inside a woman's body and an infant outside
a woman's body is fuzzy only if you ignore the woman.  

The line between infanticide and euthanasia is fuzzy only if you
ignore the motivation for the death.  Do you call all euthanasia
involving adults homicide?

#Perhaps, I should state my beliefs more clearly.  I believe infantcide
#for severely deformed infants is appropriate if it corresponds to the
#wishes of the parents.  I believe in the era before modern medicine,
#infanticide was in some cultures the safest way for women to kill an
#unwanted child.  I also believe it was an appropriate moral choice for
#them to make.  I suspect that relative to the technology we have today
#in the United States that it is legally appropriate to make infanticide
#of babies without defects a crime.  I would also hope that the courts
#would deal more leniently with a mother who commits infanticide than
#other murderers.

Your terminology is sloppy, to put it mildly.  I am not surprised that
Holtsinger believes that you believe it is morally acceptable
to kill unwanted infants.  "Unwanted" and "severely deformed" are
not synonymous.  I'm not sure that you understand that.

I'm also still not sure what it is that you are advocating.  I doubt
that anyone else is, either.  Do you think that a mother should be
allowed to kill an infant simply because she doesn't want it?  (I
am referring to a mother living in the U.S. today, not a hypothetical
ancient Greek.)  

In article <4eamiHy00iUyA8u2Ja@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
#I had some further thoughts about Ms. Garvin's rather derogatory
#comments about my last post.  
#
#Ms. Garvin states
##Ron wasn't talking about infanticide per se, he was talking about
##euthanasia.  There is a rather large difference between the
##two.  You seem to have them confused.  This makes you look
##rather ridiculous, particularly given your attempts at flaming
##Steve Novak.
#
#I agree Mr. Bense and Ms. Forgach were not talking of infanticide.  On
#the other hand, they weren't talking about euthansia as some completely
#unrelated topic.  They were talking about exactly the title of the post
#THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS, and the post I quoted was on talk.abortion
#and not some other bboard like talk.euthansia.  

Ron has replied to this.  Again, do you refer to all euthanasia
involving adults as homicide?  And, again, not understanding
the difference between abortion and infanticide reveals that
the woman is irrelevant in your view.  

These aren't "bboards" and the subject line is not always relevant,
by the way.


#I don't really
#understand your attack.  Perhaps, it is best understand in terms of one
#of Mr. Novak's own post on 25-Aug-92  Re: Abstinence is the only .. 
#Steve Novak@jaynes (854)          

[included article deleted]

Why would you think that my response to you is "best understood in
terms of" one of Steve's articles?  Are you under the impression
that Steve and I are the same person?  

#What a great post.  Mr. Novak is obviously a pargon of etiquitte.  

I'm sure that Steve is thrilled with your assessment.  Maybe
if I try hard enough, I can be known as a "pargon of etiquitte"
someday, too.

#When
#my acquitance with someone degerates to such a level, I just ignore them
#rather spend my time writing such.  

Thanks for providing evidence otherwise.  

#On the other hand, Ms. Garvin, I
#guess you consider it great fun to spend your time, answering whatever
#insane drivel Mr. Chaney slobbers up.  

Do I?  

You do enjoy making a fool out of yourself, don't you?

#I certainly did not mean to
#offend people when I wrote in my original post that "It takes time to to
#write good arguments rather to post 15 or 20 long, insane rantings in a
#row in the manner Mr. Steve Chaney and some of his frequent
#interlocuters".  I now now see how it may have been a little close to
#the truth.  I feel "rather ridiculous" offending without any intent. 

Your "truth" seems to be similar to Holtsinger's "truth."

I was offended by your assumption that you are writing "good
arguments."  You're writing flames, and rather silly ones at
that.  

#Anyway, I can not spend any more time playing on this infantile flame
#war.  So go have the last word.  I don't care.  I have better things to
#do with my life.  

Tell me, did you stick your bottom lip out as you wrote
that?

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34753 alt.abortion.inequity:3456