From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 01:59:24 GMT

<1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>Pro-choicers will often argue that even if the child is 
>considered to be a person, the woman should still have the 
>right to separate herself from the child, and that this 
>right stems from the so-called "right to bodily autonomy",
>or the "right to bodily privacy".

Sure, heck all she has to do is put the child into a foster home or seek
help from a social worker to assist in freeing her from the burden of the
child.  Don't you support this right?  Would you want a child raised by a
woman who didn't want the child?

>This right of separation does not lead to an unrestricted 
>right to abortion, since most abortion procedures directly
>violate the child's "right to bodily autonomy".  

Whoa!  Wait a sec.  You were talking about children.  What do children
have to do with abortion?

>                                                 In their
>defense, pro-choicers will argue that the woman should have 
>a right of separation which guarantees that all associated 
>risks of the abortion should be carried by the child, and 
>not by the woman.

Huh?  How can a child bear the brunt of an abortion, unless that child was
pregnant?

>But since both parties are assumed to be "persons", with 
>presumably an equal right to bodily autonomy, it would appear
>difficult to justify this particular assignment of risk. 

Who assumed that a fetus is a person?  Ooooohhh.  Now I see, you're
confused again about 'child' and 'fetus'.  I'll try to follow, but it
would be easier if you used appropriate terminology.

>One could justify it on the grounds that the child will die
>anyways after separation, but this rationale would also 
>justify intentional homicide in situations where a person 
>can choose between leaving someone to die, or helping them 
>to live.

This doesn't follow since in no other instance would one person live
inside another person's body.

>Alternatively, pro-choicers might say that the woman should 
>not bear any risks during the abortion procedure since her
>bodily resources are being used by the child, and the child
>is endangering the woman's health.  

A woman bears risk during an abortion procedure.  What makes you think she
doesn't?

>                                    But this argument could
>also be used to justify "aborting" the woman when the child's
>health and life are threatened by the woman's ingestion of
>drugs and alcohol.

I suppose you could try, but it would be pretty stupid.

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

You haven't made this clear at all.  Please try again, and get the
terminology correct.  Without it, it is difficult to follow you.

>              This position implies that newborn infants 
>are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
>late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
>must condone infanticide.

Nope.  Newborns are by definition NOT living inside the unwilling body of
another human being.  Heck Doug, if you had Jesus himself living inside of
you and didn't want him there I'd support your right to terminate him.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion