NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53295

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 4.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53295 alt.society.civil-liberty:7104 alt.rush-limbaugh:12365
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu!parker
From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
References: <gf=[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:11:36 GMT
Lines: 65

[e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Michael Loomis) writes:

[those attributions were kept for reference purposes only]

I've probably responded to this excerpt (below) before, but since (it seems)
my post and any responses to it have already expired while I was home for the
hollidays, I decided to attack it again for the sheer pyromaniacal joy of it.

If you haven't seen my response(s) to Doug's Infanticide Argument(TM) before
then don't bother flaming this one; this is not a rigorous refutation--I have
done that for this argument before--it is a brief blitzkrieg summary and a
napalm strike with hopes of bringing forth the phoenix of reason from the ashes
of Doug's Infanticide Argument(TM).  [Wow, wasn't that poetic!]

>>>>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 15-Dec-92 Pro-choicers must condone
>>>>i.. by Doug Holtsinger@csl36h.c

>>>>> 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.

Doug insists on trying to tell his opponents what their arguments are despite
my repeated attempts to educate him to the contrary.  Maybe he's blind.  Maybe
the responses expire before he gets around to reading them--that happens to me
a lot.  Maybe he has me in a kill file.  Or maybe he's just too dense to hear
that he is wrong.  It's anybody's guess.

Doug, your first mistake is in presuming you know the-only-defensible-pro-
choice-position; you don't.  Your second mistake is in presuming that positions
that are based on the non-personity of the unborn can not justify a distinction
between the born and the unborn; mine can.  Your third mistake is in assuming
there is no moral distinction between the born and the unborn and in presuming
to assert that pro-choicers must agree with your assumption; you are trying to
claim that we "must" condone something, but since you make assumptions we don't
agree with (and can argue against) we obviously DON'T *have to* condone it.
Your fourth mistake is in assuming that infanticide must not be condoned; it's
just like arguing against abortion by assuming that abortion must not be
condoned and using that assumption to avoid condoning it.  You are assuming
that infanticide must not be condoned and using that to avoid condoning
abortion (through a sort of a proof-by-contradiction, a well known (valid)
proof technique), which is circular reasoning (a well known *INvalid* proof
technique).

Doug,  Why don't you try starting without assumptions on *specific* cases
(only in general) and try to build up a *REAL* position using those axioms.
You would probably shock over half the newsgroup if you were to display such
carefully thought-out arguments instead of the half-baked ones we have come to
expect.  Your arguments and responses in this thread have made me wonder how
you came to be anti-abortion when you agree that a fetus is not a person--at
least, you did not make any attempt to dispute that meaningful point and
instead made a lunge for the unimportant one.  Perhaps you could explain your
reasoning for us, rather than try to "prove" one side by attempting to refute
any opposing position you feel capable of undermining.  People might actually
respect you.  (those who don't have you in a kill file already)

-Rob, flaming much more than usual.

Flames to /dev/null  The justification for everything not given above was
posted before (on this thread, I think) but has probably expired.