On 5/18/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: > <snip> > > > >Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality > >of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician > >that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus > >that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is > >yes. How is that being less human than a 8 week 1 lb preme that takes tens > >of thousands of dollars a day of effort to keep alive? > > > >The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the > >foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that > >the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's > >humaness.
I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. > > The short answer is that if a line has to be drawn, it has to be drawn > somewhere. As I think we have shown already in this and previous > discussions, no matter where the line is drawn, there are going to be cases > which come near the line (on both sides) where following the rule is going > to make some people unhappy. OTOH, if no line is drawn beforehand, and > each case has to be decided individually, then the question becomes who > makes that decision in each case, and again I can guarantee that there is > going to be someone who is unhappy with every such decision made. True, but one side is arguing about the lines just to get support for outlawing it entirely. > > Stating The Bloody Obvious Maru > > > -- Ronn! :) Gary Denton _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
