From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:01:48 CST

In article <1992Dec23.212832.10957@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1992Dec23.104329.21553@hemlock.cray.com>,
>by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
>
>> In article <1992Dec23.013411.7322@ncsu.edu>
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>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.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
>>>between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term 
>>>fetus.
>
>> Doug, you've just asserted that there is no '*moral*
>> weight' involved in posing a possible threat to a woman's 
>> life.
>
>He has?!?  Where?  

Pay attention, sweetie.  There have been several patient 
souls (I seem to remember Adrienne in particular) who have
pointed out in the past week that as long as the fetus is
_inside_ the woman, its presence and its prospective departure
pose a nonzero risk of death for her.  

Since Doug has doubtless read responses containing this
precise point not once, but many times, his assertion
boils down to just what I said above.  Stated as an 
equation, it looks like this:

woman = nothing

>                     He's talking about the existence of a
>"moral difference between killing a newborn infant and killing
>a late-term fetus."  The interesting kernel of this debate is
>the fact that some might conclude that there is no such moral
>distinction, apart from the involvement of other persons.  Perhaps
>you'd be interested in addressing this.
>
If a full-term fetus is killed in utero, as part of a 
medical procedure, there is an _overwhelming_ liklihood
that a woman's life is profoundly at risk at the time.
If you can show documentation from an unbiased source
that full-term fetuses are being killed in utero for
trivial reasons, perhaps you'd have a point.  I suspect
that you have no such documentation, and therefore no point.

>> If you are in a charitable mood this holiday
>> season, perhaps you could share with us the true details
>> of what women have done to you, to cause these hateful
>> feelings.
>
>Hateful feelings.  Hateful feelings.  Oh boy.  The old misogyny
>pre-emptive strike.  

You haven't been around here much, have you?
Doug's misogyny has been in evidence for a long time,
and I'd hardly call this a pre-emptive strike.  While
we're at it, hon, what have we done to _you_ that brings
on the following bit of condescension?

>                     Muriel, go ahead and take Doug on.  He ain't
>so bad.  You might find that your intellectual skills are sufficient
>to enable you to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

OOHHHHHhhhhhhhh.  Do you really think so, Steve?
It just sends my girlish heart into palpitations, that
a BigStrongAlphaMaleNeuroScienceStudent thinks there
might be some hope for li'l ol' me.

>And I'm interested in what you might have to say.
>
For those of you who are new to this forum, I have been
around this mulberry bush with Dougie several times before.
I leave it up to the individual choice of other readers
to determine whether my contributions have been meaningful.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion