Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: dogs, cats, and kids
Message-ID: <2021@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 15:24:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2021
Posted: Wed Oct  9 15:24:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 19:31:55 EDT
References: <739@ttidcc.UUCP> <654@ccice2.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 55

PAUL W. KARBER writes:

> 	"The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a 
> 	viable fetus, even though stillborn, is a person under the law
> 	for the purposes of making a wrongful death claim in a
> 	malpractice suit. In a decision that the plaintiffs' attorney
> 	said would set an important precedent, the court held that
> 	
> 		"There is no logic in the premise that if a viable infant
> 		dies immediately after birth in is not a 'person' but
> 		that if it dies immediately after birth it is a 'person'."
> 
> 	The court rejected the idea that the law would permit recovery
> 	of damages only if an injured fetus survived or died after birth."
> 
> Just thought you'ld want to know what you could do. (in Arizona)

Thanks to Mr. Karber for printing this excerpt.  It has always
rubbed me the wrong way that although a fetus can inherit
(without violating, say, the Rule Against Perpetuities), and
although third parties may be held liable for damages if they
injure the unborn physically or even financially, nevertheless
the mother has a *privilege* (Constitutionally protected, no less)
to wipe out *all* the fetus's rights with one blow.  

How about a case citation, Mr. Karber?

ADRIENNE REGARD (quoted by Mr. Karber) writes:

>Many fetuses survive after 7 months gestation and pre-mature birth.
>Because they CAN doesn't mean that we can pass laws (public policy) on what
>statistically SHOULD be the outcomes, and declare it human as of that 7
>months date (or any other arbitrary date).  [ADRIENNE REGARD]

How about the legal concept of "but-for" causation, so often applied
in negligence cases, as in, "But for A running the red light, B would
not have been injured."?  Similarly, but for the abortionist's saline
injection or dilatation & evacuation, an otherwise healthy 7-month
fetus would probably be able to survive with proper care.  By any
reasonable theory of causation, the abortionist has caused the death
of the fetus, i.e., killed it -- I don't believe the abortionist himself
would deny that.  That's why "viability" played such a role in the Roe
v. Wade decision, and that's why it's still illegal to abort on demand
during the third trimester.

Still, the above quote makes a good point:  Viability is only EVIDENCE
of humanity, it does not CONFER humanity.  It's something for legislators
to take into account when they pass laws about abortion, along with their
own moral values and the wishes of their constituents.  

And conversely, just because a two-week embryo (or one of any other
arbitrary gestational age) CANNOT survive removal from the womb
doesn't mean that we can declare it non-human for that reason alone.

				-- Matt Rosenblatt