From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:59:38 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Nov5.052107.619@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|>In article <1da49nINNnl2@gap.caltech.edu> 
|>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|>
|>>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
|>>
|>>> Therefore women would be guaranteed the right 
|>>> to choose to terminate a pregnancy without any roadblocks....
|>>> once evidence of life or sustainable life exist, the state has a
|>>> compelling interest to equally protect the lives of both the mother
|>>> and child.  Therefore, no abortions could be performed after that point,
|>>> except in life-threatening cases.
|>
|>> Congratulations!  You've just lined out the basic idea behind Roe v Wade.
|>
|>Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
|>the term of pregnancy.  In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the states 
|>may not prohibit third trimester abortions when the abortion is necessary 
|>to preserve the woman's ``health'' or life, but the Court gave a very broad 
|>definition to the term ``health'', including emotional and psychological
|>health (see the documentation below).  Additional documentation can be 
|>provided upon request.
[citations and good documentation of how the courts interpret Roe v. Wade
 on the question of post-viable exceptions; thanks Doug]

Now I have to ask the critical question before we go wild here talking
about whether it is "right" to allow the broad definition of health
(Doug seemed to be implying that allowing exemptions for pyschological 
health was somehow a "bad" thing):

  Could someone please cite some statistics on the frequency and/or
  absolute number of cases where a post-viable abortion is granted
  for (1) any reason (2) reasons outside strict physical health?

If there aren't any (or many) cases then PLEASE let's not have some
great big debate.  I consider it pretty boring to have flamefests over
moot points (I know not everyone here holds that same opinion though :-)

On the other hand, to counter Doug's apparent bias against the current
interpretation, I'll have to weigh in as seeing nothing wrong with
such exemptions.  I still guess that such cases are extremely rare.
Personally, I feel a little queasy about such cases, but I figure
that the woman involved has infinitely more information on the specifics
of the case than any outside observer, and thus better equiped
to make the decision.

Others may be outraged by the "injustice" of said exemptions, but
even if I agreed with them (which I don't) I think there are plenty
of more important and large "injustices" in the world which we should
deal with first.  It's a question of priorities; I also think that the
anti-abortionists (I'm specifically not using the term "pro-life" here
since I'm only dealing with the abortion issue; not to be insulting)
could better spend their time and effort working to DECREASE the number
of unwanted pregnancies (through sex education and/or better availability
of contraception devices) rather than force women to carry to term.

>Doug Holtsinger

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion