Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Late term abortions
Message-ID: <877@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 18:03:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.877
Posted: Mon Jun 17 18:03:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 05:43:51 EDT
References: <3@dscvax2.UUCP> <975@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 22

Sophie Quigley, responding to Matt Noah, remarks parenthetically:

> (noone is trying to extend abortions to post-birth
> babies ... ). 

Maybe no one in this discussion is trying to do that, but there are
those who believe that infanticide is the next logical step after
abortion.  I.e., as abortion is considered more and more acceptable,
infanticide will also become acceptable.  Let it be noted that some
of those who see infanticide as a successor to abortion are not
opposed to either.  (And yes, I will provide references; it may be
a while, as I am already behind in posting references.)

For now, though, consider the recent cases of infants being allowed
to starve to death because the parents would not allow corrective
surgery to be performed.  One such is the famous "Baby Doe" case.
The courts upheld the parents' right to have the baby starved to
death, even though more than one couple was willing to adopt the
child and provide the necessary care.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys