Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative abortion law; the living abortus

  • Chapter
Paediatric Forensic Medicine and Pathology

  • 155 Accesses

Abstract

Recent surveys indicate a trend towards the liberalization of abortion legislation in industrialized countries. The motivation behind this movement has been said to include the need to reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with illegal abortion; the provision of access to abortion for those who are economically deprived; and the urge to secure the right of all women to decide on pregnancy and motherhood [1]. Such legislation is, however, usually accompanied by procedural and administrative conditions which effectively limit the actual practice and availability of abortion. At the same time, access to abortion is becoming increasingly restricted during the later stages of pregnancy. According to Leenen [1], this can be’ s een as a balancing of the rights of the woman against the protection of the fetus’. Indeed, postviability protection of the fetus in utero only cedes to the overriding right of the woman to treatment where her life is in danger — a right which would be implicit through the general principles of the criminal law even in those countries which permit of no explicit exceptions to the illegality of abortion [2].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Tietze, C. and Henshaw, S. (1986) Induced Abortion: A World Review 1986, 6th edn, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See also Leenen, H.J., Pinet, G. and Prims, A.V. (1986) Trends in Health Legislation in Europe, Masson, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For Canadian law and the defence of necessity, see Dickens, B. (1976) The Morgentaler case: criminal process and abortion law. Osgoode Hall Law J.,14, 229.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rhoden, N. ’some legal considerations’, and Stubblefield, P.’ some medical considerations’, both in Note (1985) Late abortion and technological advances in fetal viability. Fam. Plann. Persped., 17, 160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hack, M. and Fanaroff, A. (1986) Changes in the delivery room care of the extremely small infant. New. Engl. J. Med., 314, 660.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Knoppers, B.M. and Brault, I. (1989) L’Avortement et la loi dans les pays francophones, Thémis, Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Trib. corr. Bruxelles (8e ch.) 30 Juin 1983 J T 24 Septembre 1983, 105; Cour cass. Neerlandaise (2e ch.) 5 Février 1985 J des procès, 3 Mars 1985. But this decision was effectively overturned by the Court of Appeal (Ghent, 14 November, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  8. (1977) Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law (Badgley Report).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Powell, M. (1987) Report on Therapeutic Abortion Services in Ontario: A Study Commissioned by the Ministry of Health, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott v. Her Majesty and A-G of Canada [1988] S.C.R30.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Borowski v. Attorney-General of Canada (1987) 4 WWR 285 (Sask. CA). The question was declared moot by the Supreme Court (March, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Loi no. 75-17 relative à l’interruption volontaire de la grossesse (Code de la Santé Publique, arts. 162-163).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harris v. McRae 100 S Ct 2671 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Knoppers, B.M. (1982) Physician liability and prenatal diagnosis. CCLT 18, 169. See, in general, Dickens, B. and Cook, R. (1979) The development of Commonwealth abortion laws. Int. Law Q., 28, 424.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rhoden, N. (1984) The new neonatal dilemma: live births from late abortions. Georgetown Law J., 72, 1451

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dickens, B. (1985) Abortion, amniocentesis and the law. Am. J. Comparative Law, 34, 249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mason, J.K. (1989) Abortion and the law. In Legal Issues in Human Reproduction (ed. S.A.M. McLean), Gower, Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Roe v. Wade 410 US 113 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  19. City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc. 103 S Ct 2481 (1983); Planned Parenthood Ass. of Kansas City, Mo., Inc. v. Ashcroft 103 S Ct 2517 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. 106 S Ct 2169 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leading Article (1979) No case for an abortion Bill. Br. Med. J., 2, 230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carruthers v. Therapeutic Abortion Committees of Lions Gate Hospital et al. (1983) 6 DLR (4th) 57; Carruthers v. Langley (1985) 23 DLR (4th) 623.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Berger, G.L., Brenner, W.E. and Keith, L.G. (eds) (1981) Second Trimester Abortion: Perspectives after a Decade of Experience PSG, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  24. Callahan, D. (1986) How technology is reframing the abortion debate. Hastings Center Report, February, 33

    Google Scholar 

  25. Grimes, D.H. (1984) Second trimester abortions in the United States. Family Plann. Perspect., 16, 260; Tietze, ref. 1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wood, M. and Hawkins, L. (1980) State regulation of late abortion and the physician’s duty of care to the viable fetus. Missouri Law Rev., 45, 394.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kass, L.R. (1977) Determining death and viability in fetuses and abortuses. Bioethics Dig., 2, 1; Rhoden, ref. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dunn, P.M. and Stirrat, G.M. (1984) Capable of being born alive? Lancet, i, Rhoden ref. 13; Kass, ref. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tunkel, V. (1979) Abortion: how early, how late, and how legal? Br. Med. J., 2, 253.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Somerville, M. (1981) Reflections on Canadian abortion law: evacuation and destruction — two separate issues. Univ. Toronto Law J., 31, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. See People v. Hayner 90 NE 2d 23 (NY, 1949) (complete presence outside the womb); State v. Winthrop 43 Iowa 519 (1876) (respiration).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sendor, B. (1975) Medical responsibility for fetal survival under Roe and Doe. Harvard Civil Rights, Civil Liberties Law Rev., 10, 444.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Commonwealth v. Edelin 359 NE 2d 4 (Mass, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bowles, T.G.A. and Bell, M.N.M. (1979) Abortion — a clarification. New Law J., 129, 944.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cv. S [1988] QB 135.

    Google Scholar 

  36. R v. Marsh (1979) 2 CCC (3d) 1 (County Court, Vancouver Island, BC).

    Google Scholar 

  37. R v. Prince (1986) 30 CCC (3d) 35 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  38. People v. Chavez 77 Cal App 2d 621 (1947) (fetus in process of being born); Keeler v. Superior Court 87 Cal Rptr 481 (1970) (destruction of fetus still inside the mother’s womb).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yu, V.Y.H. (1987) The extremely low birthweight infant: ethical issues in treatment. Aust. Paediatr. J., 23, 97.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 410 US 113 (1973). For commentaries, see Notes (1976) State protection of the viable unborn child after Roe v. Wade. How little, how late? Louisiana Law Rev., 37, 270; Sendor, ref. 25; Wood and Hawkins, ref. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Doe v. Bolton (1973) 410 US 179; Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976) 428 US 52; Colautti v. Franklin (1979) 439 US 379.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Horan, D.V. (1979) Viability revisits the court in Colautti v. Franklin. Hosp. Prog., February, 20; Nelson, T.A. (1984) Taking Roe to the limits: treating viable feticide as murder. Ind. Law Rev., 1119; Wood and Hawkins, ref. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  43. France: Conseil constitutionnel français, 15 Jan 1975, D 1975 II, 529; Canada: see ref. 8; UK: Paton v. United Kingdom (1981) 3 EHRR 408.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Knoppers, B.M. (1985) Modern birth technology and human rights. Am. J. Comp. Law., 33, 1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Knoppers, B.M. (1987) Reproduction technology and international mechanisms of protection of the human person. McGill Law J., 32, 336.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. World Health Organization (1979) Definitions and Recommendations, International Classification of Diseases, 9th edn, Vol. 1, WHO, Geneva, pp. 763–768.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See, generally (1983 and yearly updates) Handling Pregnancy and Birth Cases (Family Law Series), McGraw-Hill, Colorado. Also the recent paper of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. Crimes Against the Foetus, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Iowa, s.707.6 (Criminal Law); Arizona, s. 36-2301.01-c.

    Google Scholar 

  49. The author points out that, as this book goes to press. Roe v. Wade is again being challenged: Reproductive Health Service v. Webster 851 F 2d 1071 (1988). The Supreme Court is likely to rule in mid-1989. See Shapter, D. (1989) Pediatric News, March, p. 50 — Ed.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Bartha M. Knoppers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Old College, University of Edinburgh, South Bridge, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH89YL

    J. K. Mason CBE, MD, LLD, FRCPath, DMJ (Professor of Forensic Medicine and Honorary Fellow) (Professor of Forensic Medicine and Honorary Fellow)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Knoppers, B.M. (1989). Comparative abortion law; the living abortus. In: Mason, J.K. (eds) Paediatric Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7160-9_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7160-9_25

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-412-29160-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7160-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation