So, do you agree with the finding in Roe, that after fetal viability the state has an interest?

[cali]

Just curious what people think.

[elleng]

1. Context? Cite?

Thanks

[cali]

2. here

The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_Wade#Supreme_Court_decision

[Hepburn]

3. I have a problem with the fact that "viability" was not defined.

A severly deformed fetus that can live some existence out side the womb has viability ~~ even if the fetus can survive merely for minutes or hours after birth.

Same goes for a fetus that could survive perhaps for years but who for all practical purposes would have very limited brain functioning.

What Roe seems to presume is that the fetus is "normal" ~~ whatever "normal" means ~~ and that the issue centers on the abortion of a "healthy" fetus.

There are circumstances where the fetus is viable, but is anything but healthy, normal or with the potential of living a life with any quality.

Edit for typo

[cali]

5. excellent point.

thanks for adding it.

[OneGrassRoot]

12. I agree...it brings into question the whole "quality of life" debate...

once again, and overlaps with subjects such as life support, euthanasia and such, IMO. Very difficult topics that are extremely personal.

As Lynda Waddington so eloquently expressed at the end of her letter to Barack Obama in 2008:

"...When I end my story, it is always with the question that I would like for you to answer now:

If your loved one was placed on life support and attending physicians said there was no chance of life continuing without the machines, who do you want to make the decision as to when and if life support is removed?”


Lynda is a DUer and was interviewed by Anderson Cooper Monday evening.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5771219&mesg_id=5771219

[tavalon]

4. My view has been changing of late

Certainly if the baby has anomalies incompatible with life, I don't think in utero viability means squat. I used to feel like even newborn babies don't have much in the way of personality, only potential so the idea of the state intervening at all before birth seemed like something I didn't care to support. But I've been working in the NICU for the last two years and I've come to find out that I was completely wrong - these kids I take care of have very definite personalities and they are evident almost from the first few hours and when I think of them, I get less sure of my stance.

[elleng]

6. Having 2 full-term babies showed me that!

:hi:

[tavalon]

7. See, people have always thought I knew all about children

because I was a labor and delivery nurse but I never had children of my own and the very short time I would spend with the newborns before mom and baby went to postpartum didn't give me a good concept of their personalities. Working in the NICU, I spend 12 hours a day with the little ones, some of whom are 12 weeks early and they all have very obvious personalities.

[cali]

8. that must be fascinating.

I'm not surprised to hear that infants can be very different personality wise from one another, but I've never had the opportunity to really see it. I have one kid, and he's really the only child I ever observed closely during infancy.

[tavalon]

13. It's mind blowing really

Some of them have the most amusing quirks.

[elleng]

16. Its neat to imagine you seeing these!

Take my husband (PLEASE!!!) Our older daughter was happy to fall asleep with her head on his shoulder as he walked to and fro in our room at bedtime. Our younger daughter, 3 1/2 years later, perked up and looked around as he did the same with her, AND HE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HER!!!! (Swell judgment, eh?) I suggested she was CURIOUS, wants to see what's happening!!!

[elleng]

9. Roe is a difficult case.

For those interested in reading it:

http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

[cali]

10. Yes it is. and there are some on the pro-choice side who think it's

a bad decision. I'm not among them, and I'm not an attorney, but I do know that some lawyers think it was a bad decision.

[elleng]

14. You're right;

a fair number of attorneys think it was a bad decision.

[Recursion]

27. I don't think Roe has worked

I'm not enough of a lawyer (I'm not a lawyer at all) to be able to judge the quality of the legal thinking. I just think it hasn't worked. Brown v. BoE "worked" in that we now have two generations that have gone to more or less integrated schools and nobody seems to be seriously thinking about explicitly going back (though implicit "white flight" segregation is still a problem).

Roe hasn't "worked" like that; the only consensus we seem to have as a nation is that an outright ban with no regard for the woman's health is not tolerable, and a rough feeling among a plurality that there are "too many" abortions being done, for the "wrong" reasons. It's unfortunate that this required a court case rather than being worked out through the legislatures, because this one issue essentially holds our entire judicial system hostage (this is one of the main reasons I think our justice system is competent at handling racial inequality but not sexual inequality; maybe there's something intrinsically patriarchal about how it's set up).

Hard cases make for bad law, and law is a very blunt instrument to apply to personal medical decisions.

[stray cat]

11. If a baby would be viable outside the womb - absolutely

It doesn't mean in some cases the abortion would not be performed but should not be performed randomly on demand without some justification.

[abluelady]

15. Viability!

That's the biggie, as Hepburn said. To me quality means so much more than quantity. And while I can't and won't ever make that decision for someone else, I certainly believe I should always have that right for me and any unborn fetus I carry. While I have lots more thoughts on that, I'll stop here!

[baldguy]

17. The point of viability is always changing

because of scientific & technical advances, along with the individuals' condition. Therefore it can't be defined in the law.

I think it's more of a concern that due to RW intimidation & terrorism, people have been systematically denied their Constitutional rights.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. Another excellent point.

The hypocrisy of the rabid anti-choice crowd is.....stunning.

They terrorize and kill to save the life of a fetus, even one which has died in utero; they are against stem cell or other scientific advancement which could SAVE lives and improve the QUALITY of lives; they are generally against social programs which also seek to save lives and improve the quality of lives; and they are determined that life purely be about personal responsibility, literally from the moment of birth.

Absolutely stunning.

I'm sure Jesus is appalled by some of purported His followers.

[cali]

20. actually, the point of viability has not changed much in the last

40 years. I know it seems counterintuitive, but Roe placed viability at 24 weeks. There's been little change since then.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. It would be interesting to hear Judge Sotomayor's answer to this question

[customerserviceguy]

21. It is the science of 1970 frozen into law

It's hard to find the word 'trimester' in even a shadow of a penumbra of an emanation of a part of the Constitution, so I have to conclude that the Court used what we knew about fetal viability in about 1970 in making it's decision. As knowledge changes, any law based on that knowledge becomes subject to being out of date.

It's what they tried to do when they outlawed the teaching of the "theory" of evolution. At the time such laws were adopted, there was much less hard scientific evidence for evolution than we have today. Attempts to enforce such laws just seem silly.

[VelmaD]

22. I don't think that state has any more interest...

after "viability" than it does after a child is born. Meaning this - if I'm not required by law to donate blood/an organ/etc to save the life of a born person of any age, how can the state require that I essentially donate my entire body to keep alive one that isn't born yet?

[slackmaster]

23. The states have an interest in ensuring that all medicine is practiced only by qualified people

Of course the states have an interest!

[T Wolf]

24. Viability is a concept defined subjectively by those with an interest in the outcome. But, however

it is currently defined, the major point that should not be ignored is that, as long as the fetal cells (at whatever stage) are inside the woman's body, the decision should be hers and hers alone.

Nothing else should matter. Forced birth is wrong. It is slavery of the worst kind and should not be tolerated.

[cali]

28. lol. how typical of you

you pitch a fit about anyone eating a chicken, but have no problem whatsoever with the abortion of a healthy nine month fetus. There isn't a country in the world that agrees with you.

[marshall]

25. The state ALWAYS has an interest

It's just a matter of deciding which side prevails when there is a difference of opinion or a conflict of interest.

[david13]

26. No

[BlooInBloo]

29. Coming up with a one-size-fits-all rule is well-nigh impossible...

I acknowledge the SCOTUS ruling as a damn good try, however.

[HamdenRice]

30. This "interest" is a legal term of art, so yes, of course, the state has an interest

The state having an "interest" in a viable fetus does not that there can't be an abortion of a later term fetus.

The government can only regulate something if it has an "interest" -- a legitimate claim to be able to regulate. The state has no interest for example in how long my fingernails are when I clip them.

By asserting an interest, the government can regulate late term abortions in a way that it could not regulate a recently conceived embryo.