Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wednesday, 26 Aug 1992 22:57:06 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
 <1992Aug25.171206.12387@advtech.uswest.com>
 <0eaiZKe00Uh748UVho@andrew.cmu.edu> <BtKotw.HGH.2@cs.cmu.edu>
 <oealXgC00Uh_A8qGBD@andrew.cmu.edu>

In article <oealXgC00Uh_A8qGBD@andrew.cmu.edu>, Michael Loomis says:
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes
>>In article <0eaiZKe00Uh748UVho@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis writes:

>>[self-righteousness and included text deleted]
>>
>>#In the meantime, I would ask anyone thinking about repling to Mr.
>>#Novak's post  to consider why they would oppose infanticide and would
>>#yet support a third trimester abortion as described in this post by Mr.
>>#Ron Bense with Ms. Suzanne Forgach playing the chorus.  In particular,
>>#why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
>>#a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus?
>>#The fetal idolators claim that abortion is painful to the fetus as a
>>#reason to oppose abortion.  Yet opposition to infanticide causes yet
>>#greater pain.
>>
>>Supporters of legal abortion usually take this opportunity
>>to point out the fact that a third trimester fetus differs
>>from an infant in a very obvious way, leaving aside developmental
>>differences.  A third trimester fetus is living inside a
>>woman and is affecting her health.
>>
>Legal reasoning on abortion has also often considered the concept of
>viability.  Third trimester fetuses are usually considered viable.  Why
>magic occurs at birth that suddenly makes killing a bad thing.

You missed Ms. Garvin's point about the fetus being
inside the woman, did you?

>>[more included text deleted]
>>
>>Ron wasn't talking about infanticide per se, he was talking about
>>euthanasia.  There is a rather large difference between the
>>two.  You seem to have them confused.  This makes you look
>>rather ridiculous, particularly given your attempts at flaming
>
>Ms. Garvin, I am quite aware of the difference between infanticide and
>euthansia.  I am also aware that the difference can be quite fuzzy.

It appears that this is only fuzzy to you?

>Perhaps, I should state my beliefs more clearly.

This would be a very good idea, then people won't
misinterpret what you write.  You might begin
with why you think infants do not have a place
in the social order.

>I believe infantcide
>for severely deformed infants is appropriate if it corresponds to the
>wishes of the parents.

This would be classified as euthansia.

>I believe in the era before modern medicine,
>infanticide was in some cultures the safest way for women to kill an
>unwanted child.

This is infanticide.  Can you see the difference
or is it still fuzzy?

>I also believe it was an appropriate moral choice for
>them to make.  I suspect that relative to the technology we have today
>in the United States that it is legally appropriate to make infanticide
>of babies without defects a crime.  I would also hope that the courts
>would deal more leniently with a mother who commits infanticide than
>other murderers.

Both already exist.  You do not need to wish for this.
The legal choice of euthanisa, however does not and
rests entirely in the hands of sympathetic doctors,
or in some cases judges, regardless of individual or
family desires.



Linda
--
"Where infanticide was legal, men almost always governed
 its application.  To give women the right to decide the
 fate of babies would have meant that men would have to
 give up a key part of their patriarchal power"
      L. Gordon, Woman's Body, Woman's Right
Newsgroups: talk.abortion