Well, fluff.

I see that Plessy was about a human individual being able to get treatment equal to other humans on a train ride. So far, there would seem to be a parallel to a foetus wishing to complete its journey from the uterus to the open air, yes. At no point in Plessy do I see the train ride changing the status of Mr. Plessy, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Crossbowman:"The crux of the debate in the abortion controversy is the status of the fetus, not the techniques used."

Debatable, I guess.

Crossbowman:" Even if we assume that the fetus can be considered a living person at the gestational age at which this procedure is being used for that patient, medicine has established procedures for dealing with situations in which the welfare of two (or more) living beings is in conflict."

At what point do the rights of the mother become "more" equal than the rights of the living foetus, then? I have already conceded life-or-death discretion to the *mother* by the way, so this is just a question of rationales.

Crossbowman:"Such conflicts, while rare, do occur in the case of certain types of conjoined twins and of certain complications involving multiple fetus pregnancies, for example. "

Well, with twins, it's two lives voting against one, the possibly endangered mother, whom they DO need to protect and nurture them.

Crossbowman:"Medicine has been granted the power to make such life-and-death decisions, "

Just by default, perhaps.

Crossbowman:"and it has the guidelines and experience to make such decisions, and there are well known and well-established consequences when physicians move outside those guidelines to the detriment of one of the involved patients."

I find it unsavory for either physicians or the government to play "g-d". In situations like this, I guess I will just side with the present US Supreme Court, and say that a foetus in the process of being born is entitled to have its chances to enjoy imperfect natural processes, no matter. However fate and the real "g-d" may decree, that is at least as defensible as to have imperfect medical or legislative meddling.

Crossbowman:"It's one thing for government to regulate when the issue does not revolve around health and survival. It's quite another when government decides in a life-and-death matter that it knows better than a trained and experienced physician or better than a body of physicians looking objectively at the medical data."

Completing this circular route, then, it should come around to the wishes of the mother?

Crossbowman:"From where I sit, the SC by making this decision has very loudly proclaimed its intention to place its own religious bias ahead of science and health, and that's not the kind of decision that's likely to endure. "

I will just pigeonhole that sentence with the one attempting to match this decision in significance to the Plessy decision. Clearly, courts are sometimes blindly groping, and one ruling on a zig-zag path is not worth much more than any other decision they make: all are suspect, lacking an acknowledged higher authority, that is, the Constitution or "G-d" him/her/itself.

In today's world, there's not much recommending the courts, with their Plessy decision, affecting rights in terms of the impact on individuals who can cross state lines and hopefully appeal successfully to a "higher power".