home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rock!taco!eceyv.ncsu.edu!dsh
- From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
- Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
- Message-ID: <1993Jan23.012237.16583@ncsu.edu>
- Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: NCSU
- References: <JBATES.93Jan12211615@pinocchio.encore.com> <C19GG9.7q6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Distribution: na
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:22:37 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <C19GG9.7q6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
- >margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
-
- >> We protect them by legally declaring them persons at birth, even if they
- >> don't yet qualify for a definition of personhood which requires a certain
- >> level of consciousness. The moral difference, of course, is that they are
- >> no longer inside a person, and violating her right to bodily autonomy if
- >> she doesn't want to have a fetus inside her.
-
- > Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right
- > to bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
-
- I think you're going to have a long wait ahead of you. For months
- now, I've been trying to get a pro-choicer to explain why abortion
- is morally justified even when it violates the child's right to
- bodily autonomy. I got a bunch of kooky explanations, but none
- that really distinguished between a newborn infant and a child
- who's still in the womb, or that didn't reduce the woman to a
- fetal container.
-
-
- >MAC
-
-
- ---
- Doug Holtsinger
- 'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that
- Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
-