NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/28762

Text File | 1992-07-25 | 3.3 KB | 87 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!eco.twg.com!chall
From: [e-mail] (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Charles Don Hall)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eco.twg.com
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:46:02 GMT
Lines: 73

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[ATTENTION: Stuff posted on Fridays and Saturdays tends to get
expired before I can read it. Please delay your response if
you want me to see it.]

>I never said that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK to
>kill viable fetuses. That is your strawman argument.

>If a pro-choicer is to avoid embracing infanticide, they
>must offer a rational justification for killing a late-term
>fetus that would not also justify infanticide in similar
>circumstances. Blatant assertions like "because it's inside
>the mother" have no rational justification.

>> The only thing that's changed
>> is that I've gotten fed up and left,

>I think you got "fed up" because you haven't understood my
>argument.

Unlikely. I'm a licensed philosopher.

Well, I suppose I can try one more time. I believe that the
argument in your second paragraph is:

For any pro-choicer X, there exists some set of potential
    circumstances Y, such that X believes that it is morally
    justifiable to kill a late-term fetus to prevent Y, and
    such that X believes that it is not morally justifiable
    to kill a newborn to prevent Y.

Now, whenever I argue against this, you accuse me of attacking
a strawman. But I've read your argument many many times, and
this is the only interpretation I can come up with. If I've
left out any relevant points, I don't think it's my fault.

For the record, my rebuttal is:

I believe that there exists no set of circumstances Y such that
     it is not permissible to kill a newborn to prevent Y,
     and such that it is permissible to kill a late-term
     fetus if Y occurs.

>Ms. Garvin has simply asserted that it's "sometimes necessary"
>to kill a late-term fetus to remove it from its mother, but
>she hasn't defined "necessary". Her "necessary" might include
>"necessary to avoid labor pains", or "necessary because it's
>less expensive than labor", or "necessary because the woman
>wants her down's syndrome child killed". Under similar
>circumstances, these reasons would also justify infanticide.

Well, let's see. Your first two sets of circumstances are
not relevant to the problem at hand, because a woman can't
avoid the pain or expense of labor by killing a newborn.

The third set of circumstances is relevant. I don't believe
that the "desire to have a Down's syndrome child killed" is
sufficient as the sole motivation for either a late-term
abortion or infanticide. If a woman wants to be rid of
a viable fetus with Down's syndrome, then she has the option
of having it removed alive and handing it over to the goverment.

>>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  ([e-mail])


>Doug Holtsinger

--

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  ([e-mail])
===========================================================