NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/49206

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 6.6 KB | 155 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rock!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
From: [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion (couldn't find original)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:08:26 GMT
Lines: 142

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
>[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>> Doug has been around longer than I, maybe he knows some more examples of
>> people posting on talk.abortion expressing support for legalized
>> infanticide.

> UNlikely. Then again, it seems to me that a lack of actual statements of
> support for infanticide would stop DODie from alleging the same, so I'll
> guess that you are right, and that DoDie will indeed produce said list.

Here are some pro-choice posters commenting on the
personhood status of newborn infants.  Please note
that while most of these posters believe that newborn
infants may not be "persons", they should nevertheless
be protected under the law.  I don't really understand
their reasoning.


  "What is the problem with you Christian dudes? It's fairly clear that
   abortion is O.K. The child doesn't feel anything and is not aware of his
   impending demise (and therefore doesn't suffer phsycologically). In fact the
   same argument can be applied to justify "post-natal abortion", since a child
   of say less than 1 year of age can not understand that he is about to die
   provided the surgeon acts tactfully), and can be put to death in a painless
   way."

      ([e-mail]> )
      <[e-mail]>


  "Now *I* would sooner have a 4-month old fetus aborted, all right, let's
   not be squeamish: I'd sooner KILL a 4-month old fetus than a 10-year old
   cat, or a 3-month old kitten, or puppy, or crow, for that matter. Because
   a cat, a dog, a crow of those ages display a higher consciousness than
   a human fetus in the womb. They are more conscious, more human, if you
   prefer, than an unborn human, even a newly-born one, even a 3-month old
   human baby. Having thus ruffled a few morally upright feature, I shall
   return into my nethole."

       [e-mail] (Jacques Guy)
       <[e-mail]>


  "Given a definition of "person" which depends upon brain function,
   I think the argument can be made that the newborn infant is not a
   fully functional person.  I, personally, would not hold that a three-day
   old infant is a person in any useful sense of the word."

       [e-mail] (John W. Bates)
       <[e-mail]>


    >Infants and toddlers do not have a moral conscience, so therefore they
    >are not human beings by your definition. Mental vegetables would not be
    >human beings under your definition either, since they do not have
    >"thoughts".

  "For the latter, you are 100% correct. They aren't. (IMHO of course)
   For the former, you said it yourself, they're infants and toddlers,
   not persons per se. Does this bother you? It doesn't me, obviously."

       [e-mail] (Ron Bense)
       <[e-mail]>


  "Have fun, as I claim that even infants and toddlers don't qualify as
   full persons, or even half persons. Please respond to that particular
   thread, if you so desire."

      [e-mail] (Ron Bense)
      <[e-mail]>


     >Infants and toddlers should not possess the right to life?  At what
     >age approximately should children become persons?

  "That varies, and depends on the child. There are adults who don't really
   qualify for the person status either, it's not an age thing, but a develop-
   mental stage that must be reached. That is for the person argument."

      [e-mail] (Ron Bense)
      <[e-mail]>


  "Perhaps the answer is that infanticide really is permissible?  After
   all, plenty of other cultures practice it.  (e.g. cultures that value
   male heirs more than female ones, so parents will kill every baby they
   have until they have a son.)"

      [e-mail] (Brian Kendig)
      <[e-mail]>


  "I think infanticide is quite an appropriate option for women in areas
   where abortion is more dangerous than childbirth, as in some places in
   the third world.  Aristotle thought infanticide was an appropriate way
   to deal with unwanted children and I agree that it was sensible in
   ancient greece.  I think with all the fine medical technology that we
   have available in the US, it may be appropriate to forbide infanticide
   except for severly deformed infants.  I certainly don't think we have
   the right to feel superior to a third world woman who may think and
   exercise different opinions on the subject."

      [e-mail] (Michael Loomis)
      <[e-mail]>


  "I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
   and abortion or infanticide.  Gay people are part of the social order,
   whether certain groups wish to think kind thoughts about us or not.
   Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
   not yet in the social order and not yet appropriate objects for ethics."

      [e-mail] (Michael Loomis)
      <[e-mail]>


  "Perhaps, I should state my beliefs more clearly.  I believe infantcide
   for severely deformed infants is appropriate if it corresponds to the
   wishes of the parents.  I believe in the era before modern medicine,
   infanticide was in some cultures the safest way for women to kill an
   unwanted child.  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."

      Michael Loomis <[e-mail]>
      <[e-mail]>


     "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
      that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
      we want to be precise)..."

     Gloria Feldt,
     chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona