Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.
The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.
|
My husband was a 19 3/4 weeks in the womb baby, born in the 1960's. Did he have some medical issues? Yes. His entire extended family made sure that 2 members of the family were there to feed him & take care of him at all times for 2 entire months. He's been told by several doctors that it was almost a miracle that he lived. Kudos to my mother-in-law, who actually punched a doctor when he suggested that since she was only 19 and could have many more babies, she donate this one's body to science (she almost got kicked out of the hospital). So it's really hard to say just when a embryo/baby might be able to be viable outside the womb.
Threaded Mode
