From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:27:28 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan24.212831.10859@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.164230.23254@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan24.052258.14213@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan24.012006.20871@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan23.182348.7135@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>>In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>>>>>All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>>>>>>>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside 
>>>>>>>her that she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
>>>>>>made such a statement. Or retract it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Many Extremist pro-choicers have proudly announced that they support
>>>>>abortion "at any time, for any reason", Mark. That certainly seems to
>>>>>cover the hypothetical which Mr. Cobb presented.
>>>>>
>>>>No Kebbin. Work on your reading skills. He quite specifically is
>>>>talking about an abortion performed during a full term labor.
>>>
>>>That falls under "at any time", does it not?
>>>
>>Back to living ini your fantasy world again, aren't you Kebbin? or is
>>this just another attempt by you to argue in favor of abortion
>>restrictions? Certainly, at any time means exactly that. 

>Okay, so by logical deduction,
>If
>	Pro-choicer X supports the right of a woman to abort "at any time"
>And
>	"During labor" qualifies under "at any time"

Not even *you* can be THAT rediculous.  Technically, and out of context,
"at any time" also includes years after birth.  Most people don't consider
it to be "abortion" at that point.
It is not really for you to say what someone *else* means by a simplified
statement of their position.

You would also do well to notice:
#############################################################################
In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) w
rites:
That would make the arguments significantly tougher.  BUt, I am at least open
to the idea, strange as it may seem to some, that abortion is ok up to 14 days,
or implantation.  I know, though, that no one would want to take the debate
down to those fourteen days.  All they want to do is say that if a woman goes
into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her that
she doesn't want it she can kill it.
#############################################################################

You can see from the complete context (ok, *more* complete) that Mike is
trying to imply that *all* pro-choicers (non-pro-lifers actually) would
support "abortion" durring labor.  Although there may be a few people who
would support that, it is hardly true of *most* pro-choice people.  Claiming
a few extreem examples is far from showing it the case for *everyone* as was
claimed.

>Then
>	Pro-choicer X supports the right of a woman to abort during labor

>							- Kevin

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion