From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mr. Holtsinger is sloppy with his quotes again
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:20:55 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# >> The following analysis of Roe v. Wade, written before the Court's 
# >> decision in Colautti v. Franklin, suggests that Roe v. Wade permits 
# >> a woman to have the physician purposely kill a viable fetus during
# >> an abortion procedure.  
# 
# > ...when the health of the mother is endangered by the prospect of
# > giving birth, as the deleted analysis by some lawyer type admits.
# 
# No, you didn't read the analysis carefully.  The author suggests
# that Roe v. Wade allows the woman to have a viable fetus purposely
# killed, even if her physical health is not threatened:

No, the author did not.  He didn't even *suggest* that.

#   "In some cases, however, the risks posed to the mother may be the
#    same whether the fetus is saved or destroyed[97]. In this setting,
#    the physician's choice will not be dictated by a judgement as to
#    the safest medical procedure. Even under such conditions, it can
#    be argued that Roe bars the state from restricting the physician's
#    option to deliberately destroy the viable fetus. The Court explicitly
#    excepted from the range of permissible state regulation those abortions
#    necessary to preserve the woman's health[98]; no mention is made of
#    a qualification or a condition on that exception. Furthermore, those
#    very health considerations that justify the abortion decision may also
#    entail the destruction of the fetus; for example, a woman's 
#    psychological health might be impaired unless she were assured
#    that the fetus was dead[99]."

You deliberately left out the last two sentences of the paragraph, and
the following paragraph where the idea is completed:

                               ...Finally, intrusive state regulation in
   this situation would infringe on the doctor's judgement as to what
   is in the best health interests of the patient, and the Court may 
   well be reluctant to allow such restriction on the doctor's decisions.
   For these reasons, Roe could be interpreted as effectively precluding
   the states from acting to protect even a viable fetus during a 
   constitutionally protected abortion undertaken to preserve the life
   or health of the mother[100].

   Nevertheless, it may be troubling to read Roe as allowing the 
   deliberate destruction of a viable fetus when there is a possibility
   of removing it alive without increased danger to the mother. One
   underlying principle of Roe is that the viable fetus has developed
   sufficiently to merit state protection; indeed, by the onset of
   viability, the viable fetus could be likened to a premature infant[101].
   As such, the deliberate destruction of the viable fetus is akin to
   infanticide[102], and it is doubtful whether the woman's interest
   in health can extend so far[103].

Don't you have anything better to do with your time?


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion