Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:37:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Britain's abortion row



Let me get back to you on that. Of course legally speaking the state has
interests in preserving fetal life, but I don't think you need to be a
person to have interests. Legally, I mean, not philosophically. The state
isn't a person either. But I'd have to look at the language of Webster
carefully to see whether the Court speaks of fetal interests.

--jks

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> Justin wrote:
> >I'm speaking morally of course. Legally the fetus in America has interests
> >but isn't a person and has no due process rights.
> 
> Legally speaking, isn't it the State that has "interests" in the fetus
> since the fetus itself, lacking in personhood, does not have any interest
> of its own, including a preference for life or death?
> 
> Yoshie
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---