From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:21:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.193014.13808@ncar.ucar.edu> 
kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>>> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
>>> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>

>> 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.  

> It's your second try at it, but I still can't tell whether this is 
> supposed to be a "yes" or "no" answer to my straight-forward question.

Your question is ambigious.  By "significant distinguishing
factors", do you mean factual differences or moral differences?
I'll agree that there are factual differences between an 
infant and a child in the womb, but no moral differences. 

> All fetus' (of any type) are *inside* a woman VS. all infants are 
> *outside* a woman.  (ie. major physical difference) 

That is a physical, factual difference, but it has not been 
demonstrated to be a moral difference. 
 
> because a (late-term) fetus is literally *inside* a woman, 
> it is infringing on that woman's bodily autonomy to a degree that
> is *obviously* far beyond any infringement an infant is capable of.
> (ie. major moral difference) 

Why is the child infringing on the woman's bodily autonomy,
and not vice versa?  Why aren't they both infringing on 
each other's bodily autonomy? 

> because a (late-term) fetus is literally *inside* a woman, 
> it poses a *real* threat on that woman's life & health to a degree
> that is *obviously* far beyond any threat an infant is capable of.
> (ie. major physical & moral difference) 

And the presence of the woman can sometimes pose a real
threat to the child's life and health.  Conditions like
Rh incompatibility, or the woman's abuse of drugs and
alcohol, can kill the child.  Under these circumstances,
there's far more threat to the child than to the woman,
and the child would then be entitled to "abort" the woman. 

At best, your reasoning leads to a right of separation,
but not to unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  People are 
entitled to use lethal force in self-defense only when 
they can reasonably believe that their life is in immediate 
danger; pregnancy is not a situation where that occurs 
often.

> Consequently YOUR WHOLE "Pro-choicers must condone infanticide" ARGUMENT 
> IS RENDERED INVALID because it *requires* your casual "no difference" 
> assertion to be true when in fact this assertion can easily be called 
> into serious question with minimal effort.

You have failed to demonstrate any moral difference between
killing an infant and killing a fetus.  You have demonstrated
some factual differences, along with some moral differences
which will force you into ludicrous positions, such as allowing
the child to "abort" the woman in some circumstances.
 
> Some honest criticism: I think 
> such faulty arguments actually hurt the pro-life cause because they serve
> to reinforce the association of faulty reasoning with pro-lifers.
> Ie. pro-lifer's are their own worst enemy.

Pro-lifers are not the only ones who believe that there's
no moral difference between abortion and infanticide. A pro-
choicer by the name of Michael Tooley has written an entire 
book on the subject, and he argues that there's no moral 
difference between the two.  (BTW, I'm not pro-life).


>-Brian


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion