NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48751

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 3.5 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!agate!stanford.edu!rock!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!galen.med.Virginia.EDU!gjh
From: [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:21:56 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
}[e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes ...
}> [e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
}>}What I would like to see are laws that allow a woman to terminate a
}>}pregnancy at any time, but requires that an attempt be made to save
}>}the life of the fetus when practical and when it does not place the
}>}mother at great additional risk.  Granted, this may not always be
}>}possible, but when it is, it should be required.
}>
}>Why would you like to see this?  Is it a problem?  Is it common?
}>Why do you think the legal system should handle this, anyway?
}>Who gets to pay for it?
}
}Some sort of clarification regarding the status of fetuses _is_
}needed.  If a woman is assaulted and subsequently miscarries, the
}assailant may (or may not) be charged with manslaughter.  Does this
}mean a fetus is a person?  Is this a good thing?  Should manslaughter
}charges apply to fetuses?
}
}If the fetus is wholly a non-person until the moment of birth, then
}such cases are clearly inappropriate; the assailant cannot be charged
}with manslaughter.  I suspect few women are happy with this
}interpretation.  An alternative is to give the fetus legal
}protections, however, this will mean that the fetus is protected from
}the mother as well.

I quoted your entire response because I cannot understand where you
explain why you would like to see this, where you provide evidence
that this is a problem or that it is common, where you explain
why the legal system should handle this, and I cannot find where
you explain who gets to pay for it.  You merely assert that it is
needed, give an example of ambiguity, ask a bunch of questions, and
then discuss an alternative.

Let me try to help you a bit.  I haven't the foggiest why you are
concerned or whether this is a common problem.  If, however, you
wish to use the legal system to address the problem, I imagine that
a statute could be passed that would provide for heavier penalties
if any harm came to a fetus during the comission of a crime.  With
the appropriate penalties, I imagine more "protection" could
be given the fetus than under simple manslaughter, and the nature
of the fetus need never be discussed.  I would suspect the taxpayer
would foot the bill.

I have explained for you how the legal system could address this and
who might be likely to pay for it.  I cannot, however, provide
information concerning why you feel this needs to be addressed,
nor can I supply the answers to whether or not you see this as
a problem, nor do I know if it is common.  I have cut down the
questions a bit, can you deal with them now?

(My answers are simply off the top of my head, as I have not given
this hardly any thought, unlike Ray, who I would hope has given it
much more consideration.)


--
       hang gliding mailing list: [e-mail]
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr [phone] [e-mail]
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!