NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53373

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 6.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:00:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group
Lines: 149

From article <[e-mail]>,
by [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson):

> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>>From article <[e-mail]>,
>>by [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson):

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

>>>>There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>>>>and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
>>>>from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
>>>>facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
>>>>between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term
>>>>fetus.

>>> Doug, you've just asserted that there is no '*moral*
>>> weight' involved in posing a possible threat to a woman's
>>> life.

>>He has?!?  Where?

> Pay attention, sweetie.  There have been several patient
> souls (I seem to remember Adrienne in particular) who have
> pointed out in the past week that as long as the fetus is
> _inside_ the woman, its presence and its prospective departure
> pose a nonzero risk of death for her.

I fully acknowledge this fact, and I'm starting to regret entering
a discussion that is framed around what someone else (in this case
Doug H.) said.  Nevertheless, I'd like to state that it was my
impression that the debate was centered on inherent moral differences
between a late-term fetus and an infant.  If so, I question whether
the location of the fetus/infant and the danger it poses are really
inherent characteristics (in terms of morality) possessed by the
fetus/infant.

Here's an example of what I'm thinking in this situation:

 A person is being held prisoner in a field.  Another person arrives,
 assesses the situation, considers the risks to his or her safety as
 well as the risks to others in a nearby field, and decides to attempt
 a rescue.

 Another person is being held in a fortified building.  After careful
 consideration, the would-be rescuer decides against a rescue attempt,
 concluding that the risks involved do not justify the potential benefit
 (i.e. saving the captive's life).

I maintain that the difference between the 2 captives has nothing to
do with moral differences between them: they're both equally valuable
and equally worthy of consideration for being rescued.  The difference
lies in the moral climate inherent in the situation.  The lives of others
are considered equally, but separately.

> Since Doug has doubtless read responses containing this
> precise point not once, but many times, his assertion
> boils down to just what I said above.  Stated as an
> equation, it looks like this:
>
> woman = nothing

He may have implied this elsewhere, and perhaps he implied it above.
Again, I thought the debate was centered on the fetus/infant and I
assumed that "factual differences" were much more narrowly applied
to the moral status of the f/i.  I agree that a refusal to consider
the woman's moral status leads to the above equation.

>>                     He's talking about the existence of a
>>"moral difference between killing a newborn infant and killing
>>a late-term fetus."  The interesting kernel of this debate is
>>the fact that some might conclude that there is no such moral
>>distinction, apart from the involvement of other persons.  Perhaps
>>you'd be interested in addressing this.

> If a full-term fetus is killed in utero, as part of a
> medical procedure, there is an _overwhelming_ liklihood
> that a woman's life is profoundly at risk at the time.
> If you can show documentation from an unbiased source
> that full-term fetuses are being killed in utero for
> trivial reasons, perhaps you'd have a point.  I suspect
> that you have no such documentation, and therefore no point.

You're right.  But that wasn't my point.  Note above:
"The interesting kernel of this debate..." and following.
Based on the responses I have seen, I was wrong about the
kernel of the debate.  I'm still curious about what folks
think about the inherent moral status of a late-term fetus,
and I'm a sucker for a good, interesting discussion of personhood
and so forth.  I DO NOT advocate any philosophy or legal
strategy that considers a fetus' (or a child's) rights to
the exclusion (or underemphasis) of another's.

>>> If you are in a charitable mood this holiday
>>> season, perhaps you could share with us the true details
>>> of what women have done to you, to cause these hateful
>>> feelings.

>>Hateful feelings.  Hateful feelings.  Oh boy.  The old misogyny
>>pre-emptive strike.

> You haven't been around here much, have you?

About a month and a half on and off.

> Doug's misogyny has been in evidence for a long time,
> and I'd hardly call this a pre-emptive strike.

I've never seen it, but I don't read his posts much.  I've been
around long enough to see a lot of pre-emptive strikes, and I've
been on the receiving end a couple of times.  Since they tend
to discourage meaningful debate, I find them frustrating and
annoying.  Since your comment does not fall into this category,
I must apologize.  My fault.

> While we're at it, hon, what have we done to _you_ that brings
> on the following bit of condescension?

It was brought on by my assumption that your charge of misogyny was
a pre-emptive strike.  I apologize.  My fault.

>>                     Muriel, go ahead and take Doug on.  He ain't
>>so bad.  You might find that your intellectual skills are sufficient
>>to enable you to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
>
> OOHHHHHhhhhhhhh.  Do you really think so, Steve?
> It just sends my girlish heart into palpitations, that
> a BigStrongAlphaMaleNeuroScienceStudent thinks there
> might be some hope for li'l ol' me.

Heh.  I would have said the same regardless of your gender, Muriel.
Nevertheless, I hereby renounce any sexist implication in my
statement.

>>And I'm interested in what you might have to say.

> For those of you who are new to this forum, I have been
> around this mulberry bush with Dougie several times before.
> I leave it up to the individual choice of other readers
> to determine whether my contributions have been meaningful.

And I'm interested in what you might have to say.
--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
[e-mail]