From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:41:58 GMT

>    = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>   = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
*dh> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
*bk> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

===== BEGIN: ARGUMENT IN QUESTION ======================================

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

>>dh> Subject: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide

>>dh> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-demand 
>>dh> must argue that the child should not be considered as a person.  
>>dh> This position implies that newborn infants are not persons, 
>>dh> since there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant, 
>>dh> and hence these pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

===== END:   ARGUMENT IN QUESTION ======================================

The subject is *your* argument and whether it has any validity.
So please, let's try to focus on *your* argument. 

You claim(ed) that "clearly":
(1) pro-choicer's cannot consider (unborn)children to be persons
(2) there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant
(3) (1)+(2) => pro-choicer's cannot consider infants to be persons
(4) (3) => pro-choicers must condone infanticide (QED)

As it turns out, I don't think this argument is valid.  *One* reason is 
that I think it's rather obvious that there *is* a BIG difference between 
a late-term fetus and an infant (in particular it's relation to a mother).
So I asked you to defend your argument via a simple question (introducing 
the word "significant" to cut you a little badly needed slack):

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

Now you have 3 choices:
(a) concede that your argument was invalid, or at least inadequately
    presented, retract it, and possibly start over with a similar but 
    more well-thought-out argument.
(b) defend your argument as stated.  For starters, defend the statement 
    I've called into question, and later, defend any other statement 
    that might be called into question (see below).
(c) refuse to defend or retract your argument, eg: by trying to change 
    the subject

So what's it going to be?  If your unable to unambiguously state your
intentions we can only conclude you've chosen (c).

-------------------------
So let's try it again:

>>>bk> Are you really unable to identify any significant distinguishing
>>>bk> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?!

>>dh> There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>>dh> and an infant.   And there are factual differences between
>>dh> a fertilized egg and a non-fertilized egg.  The question
>>dh> is whether these factual differences imply moral differences.

(no, the question was rather obvious, let's try it again...)
>bk> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
>bk> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>

dh> There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
dh> and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
dh> from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
dh> 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 ambiguous.  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. 

Why are you being so difficult?  
Are you willing to defend your argument AS STATED or not?  
You are being very ambiguous about this.  
Can you form a clear "yes" or "no" statement?  
Give it a try, then feel free to follow up by clarifying whatever requires 
clarification, eg. your idea of a "significant difference" is or isn't, 
or what "factual difference" is supposed to mean, etc.
And don't be afraid to retract your argument and come back with a better one.
It's OK.  Really.

If we can focus our (your) attention on one idea long enough, 
we might still be able to learn something by 
agreeing to disagree on some particular idea.

-------------------------
Next I call into question another one of your claims:

>>dh> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-demand 
>>dh> must argue that the child should not be considered as a person.  

This is not at all clear to me, can establish such pro-choicer's
"must argue" this?

-------------------------
-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion