From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:09:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>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".

True. However, most pro-choicers will argue that a fetus can't be considered
a person after only 6-9 weeks of gestation, when most abortions take place.
There are many arguments for this, most of them having to do with a lack of
higher-level brain activity. Most feti won't start dreaming until 20 weeks
after this period!!! I myself do not agree that a fetus should be abortable
after REM sleep begins (ie in the third trimester), but I have seen pro-choicers
do this.

Anyway....

>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".  

True. Again, however, this right is not there until the fetus has gained
personhood, which from all the evidence I can gather isn't until the third
trimester!

>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.

No such guarantee exists. No such guarantee CAN exist. An abortion
is a medical procedure. Any medical procedure, from pulling teeth to
brain surgery, has risks involved. Ask any doctor. Ask any nurse. Ask any
lifeguard or EMT personel. No matter what either side says, ANY MEDICAL
PROCEDURE A PREGNANT WOMAN UNDERGOES HAS RISKS TO THE WOMAN AND THE FETUS
ASSOCIATED WITH IT. ProChoicers can't single out abortion and say that
this one procedure must be risk-free for the woman; AntiChoicers can't say
that because abortion has risks, it must be made illegal.

>But since both parties are assumed to be "persons", with 
>presumably an equal right to bodily autonomy, 

Again, this is not the case. See above.

>it would appear
>difficult to justify this particular assignment of risk. 

It would appear difficult for you to back your above assertion.

>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 is a very difficult argument to make; I doubt many ProChoicers would
choose to make it. Most of them have gone the easier, MORE REASONABLE route
of saying that a fetus is not really a person until some point during pregnancy
or until the time of birth. Most Choicers say a fetus is not a person until
birth. I myself say a fetus is not a person until the third trimester. Most
AntiChoicers say a fetus is a person at the time of conception. This is where
we disagree, fundamentally.

>
>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.  

Nobody is saying this. Nobody can make this the case. Again, abortion is
a medical procedure with associated risks. Also, I doubt too many AntiChoicers
will want to restrict abortion for women who will suffer massive health 
problems if they become pregnant. Lastly, I know of very few pregnancies where
a fetus poses this sort of burden on a woman. Granted, pregnancy is DIFFICULT,
and labor is VERY DIFFICULT AND TRAUMATIC, but in most cases pregnancy is not
severly life threatening. Very few ProChoicers use this self-defense argument,
because it is (again) easier and more reasonable to argue that a fetus is
not morally, ethically speaking, a PERSON until some point well after conception

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

>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.

	Obviously this is where we disagree most. Firstly, most pro-choicers
(as I have stated several times before) say a fetus is not a person until
birth, or maybe earlier during the third trimester. Thus, there is a GREAT
DEAL of difference between a late-term fetus and an infant, ethically
speaking. 
	Secondly, for those of us who do not support late-term abortions
(such as myself), even if morally and ethically there is no difference
between a late-term fetus and an infant for us, there is a great deal of
difference between an infant 6-9 weeks old, when most abortions take place,
and a fetus 30-40 weeks old, which is what you're talking about.

	Given these facts, it is not at all inconistent for a ProChoicer
to support abortion-on-demand and decry infanticide. 

	Doug, I have a feeling that many reasonable people in the ProLife
community are getting tired of these attempts on your part to SCARE people
into a ProLife stance, through graphic descriptions of abortion and flimsy
arguments that the ProChoicers must condone some attrocity in order for
their arguments to remain consistent. I know I've given you a hard time
myself, but it really does not go as far as this sort of thing you do almost
every other post on this group. Perhaps you should temper your posts
with some reasonable analysis of the situation. If I were grading your
article as a paper, I'd give you a C+ if I was generous.
	
	You are a student yourself, Doug. You should take this into account.

Lost Boy

***************************************************************
* My mother CHOSE to have me. That's how I know she loves me. *
*                              -Karen Uru                     *
***************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity