garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/25/85)
> BTW, for those who believe that abortion after the 7th month is > illegal: the last I heard, you can get an abortion ANY TIME if > you can get your doctor to agree that it would be physically or > _emotionally_ damaging for you to continue the pregnancy. > Marlene Phillips Marlene is essentially correct, and I would like to use the above remarks as a springboard into a discussion of the (in)famous Roe v. Wade case, which overturned all the existing laws against abortion in the USA. Besides the obvious consequences, I would like to see discussion on the reasoning behind the decision, though I don't have time to start on that right now. As a result of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal at any time before delivery. Quoting from _The Least of These_, by Curt Young: 1. During the first third of pregnancy, abortion is legal for any reason as long as a licensed physician performs the procedure. 2. During the middle third of pregnancy, abortion is also legal, for any reason, but states may pass laws intended to protect the health of the mother... 3. During the last months of pregnancy, when the baby is clearly able to survive outside the womb -- is viable -- if given the best medical treatment available, the Court ruled that a state "may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or the health of the mother." [Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 at 164-65] [Note the material indirectly quoted from the Court's decision.] I know that some states attempted to pass laws restricting 3rd trimester abortions, which laws were struck down by subsequent Supreme Court rulings. If anyone knows any such laws which have not been overturned, I would be pleased to know about them. Note that abortion must be allowed for the preservation of the life OR THE HEALTH of the mother. It is not necessary that a pregnancy threaten the mother's life; only her health. Physical? Emotional? Mental? Presumably a threat to any aspect of her health is sufficient grounds for abortion. How does one determine if such a threat exists? "Appropriate medical judgment" -- for example, the opinion of a physician who makes a living performing abortions would suffice. (Does anyone know if the concept of "trimesters" in pregnancy existed before the Court's ruling? They don't seem to correspond to any particular event in fetal development.) Gary Samuelson ittatc!bunker!garys
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/30/85)
> As a result of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal at any time before > delivery. Quoting from _The Least of These_, by Curt Young: > 1. During the first third of pregnancy, abortion is legal > for any reason as long as a licensed physician performs > the procedure. > 2. During the middle third of pregnancy, abortion is also > legal, for any reason, but states may pass laws intended > to protect the health of the mother... >* 3. During the last months of pregnancy, when the baby is >* clearly able to survive outside the womb -- is viable -- > if given the best medical treatment available, the Court > ruled that a state "may, if it chooses, regulate, and > even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, > in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation > of the life or the health of the mother." [Roe v. Wade, > 410 US 113 at 164-65] > [Note the material indirectly quoted from the Court's decision.] [SAMUELSON] And note the asterisked lines above. Even anti-abortionists understand the notion of viability of the fetus, when it becomes viable, and what viability means in terms of autonomous existence and rights as a human being. (Odd that NO ONE responded to my article about the Arizona Supreme Court, and the way their wording and use of the word "viable" makes clear the point of demarcation of "lifehood" in terms of being a full fledged human being. Not even Matt Rosenblatt...) -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (11/04/85)
> > As a result of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal at any time before > > delivery. Quoting from _The Least of These_, by Curt Young: > > ... > >* 3. During the last months of pregnancy, when the baby is > >* clearly able to survive outside the womb -- is viable -- > > if given the best medical treatment available, the Court > > ruled that a state "may, if it chooses, regulate, and > > even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, > > in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation > > of the life or the health of the mother." [Roe v. Wade, > > 410 US 113 at 164-65] > > [Note the material indirectly quoted from the Court's decision.] [SAMUELSON] > > And note the asterisked lines above. Even anti-abortionists understand > the notion of viability of the fetus, when it becomes viable, and what > viability means in terms of autonomous existence and rights as a human being. > [ROSEN] I.e., even pro-life advocates understand what the law currently says. Is the law always right? My point was that third trimester abortions are in general legal, despite what several pro-abortionists have said (if I recall correctly, you are among those). Viability, according to Roe v. Wade, doesn't mean a thing in terms of the rights of the fetus. > (Odd that NO ONE responded to my article about the Arizona Supreme Court, and > the way their wording and use of the word "viable" makes clear the point of > demarcation of "lifehood" in terms of being a full fledged human being. Not > even Matt Rosenblatt...) The demarcation of "lifehood" was dismissed as irrelevant by the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority opinion stated that they "need not answer the difficult question of when life begins." The Court couldn't answer that question and still reach the conclusion they wanted to reach. If, for example, they had said that the fetus becomes a human being when it is viable, they would have had to conclude that its life was protected by the Constitution, and thus rule that abortion of a viable infant was unconstitutional. Gary Samuelson
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/07/85)
>>>* 3. During the last months of pregnancy, when the baby is >>>* clearly able to survive outside the womb -- is viable -- >>And note the asterisked lines above. Even anti-abortionists understand >>the notion of viability of the fetus, when it becomes viable, and what >>viability means in terms of autonomous existence and rights as a human being. >>[ROSEN] > I.e., even pro-life advocates understand what the law currently says. > Is the law always right? [SAMUELSON] In this case, it is. Clearly. So bringing up "Is the law always right?" without any evidence that it is not so in this case is simply obscuring the issue with manipulative rhetoric, of which Gary IS the acknowledged master. Even Rosenblatt can't touch him there. :-( >>(Odd that NO ONE responded to my article about the Arizona Supreme Court, and >>the way their wording and use of the word "viable" makes clear the point of >>demarcation of "lifehood" in terms of being a full fledged human being. Not >>even Matt Rosenblatt...) > The demarcation of "lifehood" was dismissed as irrelevant by the U.S. > Supreme Court. The majority opinion stated that they "need not answer > the difficult question of when life begins." The Court couldn't answer > that question and still reach the conclusion they wanted to reach. The conclusion they wanted to reach? You make it sound like lawyers and judges think like religionists! :-( No matter, clearly the judgment mentioned before does not make a judgment about what that point is, but it directly acknowledges that prior to viability, these things (these rights) do not apply. > If, for example, they had said that the fetus becomes a human being when > it is viable, they would have had to conclude that its life was protected > by the Constitution, and thus rule that abortion of a viable infant was > unconstitutional. And that is pretty much how abortion law works in this country today, with third trimester abortions only taking place in explicit life-death circumstances. Problem with that? -- And now, a hidden satanic message: _ 9L|^6| _ W6Vn|na| 622 Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bird@gcc-milo.ARPA (Brian Wells) (11/08/85)
In article <1984@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >(Odd that NO ONE responded to my article about the Arizona Supreme Court, and >the way their wording and use of the word "viable" makes clear the point of >demarcation of "lifehood" in terms of being a full fledged human being. Not >even Matt Rosenblatt...) >-- >"There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" >"Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr I saw nothing in that article that indicated they were defining the beginning of life. It seemed that they were only 'making a judgement' on when the life was 'meaningful' enough for the law to protect it. Brian Wells James 1:5 ______________________________________________________________________________ A further thought on birth control: In the previous discussions about birth control, I do not remember anyone suggesting that people should use more than one method simultaneously. This was what was taught in my schools when we discussed birth control. I would speculate that this could for all practical purposes eliminate accidental pregnancy. ______________________________________________________________________________