-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0" : "width=1100"' name='viewport'/> Plum Street Chili: Legal scholar wants to 'rescue' your fetus.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Legal scholar wants to 'rescue' your fetus.

Stay far away from people who claim they want to do things for you. Like this guy. Download a copy of his entire paper at the link.

Poster by Favianna Rodriguez.:
Does the Right to Elective Abortion Include the Right to Ensure the Death of the Fetus? - Stephen G. Gilles Quinnipiac University School of Law January 2, 2015
Abstract:

Is the right to an elective abortion limited to terminating the woman’s pregnancy, or does it also include the right to ensure the death of the fetus? Important as this question is in principle, in today’s world the conduct that would squarely raise it cannot occur in practice. The right to elective abortion applies only to fetuses that are not viable, which by definition means that they have been determined to have no realistic chance of surviving outside the uterus. Even if abortion providers used fetus-sparing methods rather than the fetus-killing methods they currently prefer, pre-viable fetuses would die within minutes. In the not-so-distant future, however, new artificial-womb technologies may make this question an urgent one by enabling pre-viable aborted fetuses to survive to full term if a fetus-sparing abortion method is used. Moreover, whether a woman has the right to ensure the death of her fetus may already have important implications for state laws that regulate the destruction or indefinite non-gestation of cryopreserved embryos.

The subject, therefore, is well worth exploring, both as a matter of constitutional principle and for its present and possible future legal ramifications. To do so, this Article analyzes hypothetical state legislation enacted in the wake of two technological breakthroughs that may occur in the coming decades: (1) improved surgical techniques that enable fetuses to be removed alive from their mothers’ wombs at any stage of gestation; and (2) artificial wombs in which these fetuses can be gestated to term. The Article assumes that these dual technologies (which I refer to as “AW”) will be safe for women, not prohibitively expensive, and reasonably effective: many pre-viable fetuses would survive fetus-sparing abortions and successfully be gestated to full term in an artificial womb. The Article then supposes that a state enacts legislation prohibiting fetus-killing abortion methods and providing AW at state expense to any woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. 
We do not know how gestation of a fetus outside a human beings body will effect the mental health and emotions of said fetus. The effects could be profound on both Woman and Fetus/Child. Only a psychopath thinks human emotion is a thing to be ignored.

All of this 'prolife' nonsense is designed to take women's power and potency from them and to put women back into the box we were in before suffrage in 1920. Women have had human rights in the US for 95 years - the lifetime of one woman.

My ova, my fetuses, my womb and my body and its contents belong to/with me and my family. I am not owned by the State or other people. This is Nazi stuff. The quote below from Ernst Rudin known as one of the founders of 'racial hygiene.'
Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children. Conversely, it must be regarded as reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the State.
My question is: what is the State going to do with these 'rescued' children? What are they going to do with the 'unhealthy' children? Never forget Tuam. It was Catholics and the State that did Tuam. Maybe death is superior than sale or donation to the State.

Childrfen at Auschwitz