Source: https://lifelegaldefensefoundation.org/life-legal-minnesota/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:08:39+00:00

Document:
Life Legal Minnesota is an affiliate of the Life Legal Defense Foundation.
The purpose, in my opinion, of an article written by David Perry is that he wants people to feel at ease killing cute kids with Down syndrome and other disabled children for eugenic reasons while they are still in the womb. Professor Perry, from the University of Minnesota, doesn’t use those exact words, probably because it sounds harsh and offensive. Abortion is actually more than harsh; it involves sacrificing the life of at least one nascent child.
Does Perry think that when a neonatologist is performing surgery she is trying to fix the body of the mother? The body of the nascent child exists before birth. There isn’t some mysterious phenomenon that occurs during the birthing process that forms the body of the baby.
Perry associates “reproductive rights” with allowing one human being to take the life of another human being as long as the weaker human is completely dependent upon the stronger human. Why not be forthright and use the term abortion? My guess, once again, is that the word is too harsh and doesn’t sound as good as some type of right.
• 99 percent of people with Down syndrome are happy.
• 97 percent of people with Down syndrome like their identity.
• 99 percent of parents love their child with Down syndrome.
What is puzzling to me is when people understand the importance of inclusiveness and then exhibit nasciphobia (fear of the very young). If there isn’t a fear of the youngest humans, then why take such drastic measures to remove them from our society?
If a nascent child isn’t human, then the mother isn’t pregnant. Perry appears to disregard the uniqueness of another human being for the purpose of eugenics. After reflection, I hope that he will reconsider his opinion and agree with one of the greatest humanitarians of the last century, ~ Albert Schweitzer.
1 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 617.18 (West 1971).
2 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 617.19 (West 1971). No prosecutions were reported under this statute.
3 See State v. Hultgren, 204 N.W.2d 197 (Minn. 1973); State v. Hodgson, 204 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1973). Prior to Roe, a three-judge federal district court dismissed a challenge to the principal pre-Roe statutes for want of a justiciable “case or controversy.” Doe v. Randall, 314 F.Supp. 32, 34 (D. Minn. 1970).
4 1974 Minn. Laws 265, 268, ch. 177, § 7.
5 Because of its undefined health exception, Minnesota’s post-viability statute, see MINN. STAT. ANN. § 145.412 subd. 3 (West 1998), would not effectively prohibit post-viability abortions. In interpreting the undefined health exception in the pre-Roe District of Columbia abortion statute, the Supreme Court held that “the general usage and modern understanding of the word ‘health’ . . . includes psychological as well as physical well-being.” United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 72 (1971). See also Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973) (in determining whether an abortion is medically necessary, “all factors– physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the well-being of the patient” may be considered). There would be few, if any, abortions that could not be justified on psychological or emotional grounds.
6 See Women of the State of Minnesota v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 27 (Minn. 1995) (“the right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution encompasses a woman’s right to decide to terminate her pregnancy”) (striking down restrictions on public funding of abortion).

References: § 617
 § 617
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 § 145
 v. 
 v. 
 v.