Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Abortion and the Constitution Message-ID: <698@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 11:34:07 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.698 Posted: Fri Aug 23 11:34:07 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 00:37:02 EDT References: <597@mit-vax.UUCP> <931@bunker.UUCP> <688@cybvax0.UUCP> <887@brl-tgr.ARPA> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 64 Summary: In article <887@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: > MIKE HUYBENSZ writes: > > > The Declaration of Independence (and Constitution and > > Ammendments) provides no support for or reason to oppose choice of abortion. > > At last we have someone on the net who knows what legal force the > Declaration of Independence has (i.e., none), and who knows what the > Constitution says about the right to abort (i.e., nothing). Mr. > Huybensz, your statement here agrees with the DISSENT in Roe v. Wade, > not the majority opinion. You are incorrect and have taken my statement out of context. My statement which you have cited superficially agrees only with one part of the chain of reasoning that would reserve to the states the right to restrict abortion, not the entire argument. However I'm happy to agree with you about the extent of my knowledge. :-) > The dissent argued that since the Constitution > is silent on the subject of abortion, the decision whether to outlaw > or restrict abortions is up to the States (Tenth Amendment, remember?). In context, my statement was aimed at rebutting a particular "constitutional" (or maybe "declarational"?) argument, not Roe vs. Wade. The constitution is too vague and general for much day-to-day legal work. A body of interpretation and application to specifics has been built to fulfill real-life needs. Roe vs. Wade is a part of and supported by this body. > If Mr. Huybensz is a pro-choicer, he's the first pro-choicer I've read > who agrees with the dissent in Roe v. Wade. If we could have two more > such "pro-choicers" on the U. S. Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade could be > overturned, and the number of fetuses destroyed in this country could > be greatly reduced. Your first sentence is blatantly wrong. I am a pro-choicer, but disagree with the dissent. You second sentence is true to the extent that a change of two votes in the supreme court could change Roe vs. Wade. The supreme court could also reaffirm "separate but equal". That's politics and power; and the constitution and ammendments are nothing more. They're not divine. > The rest of you: READ the cases. READ the statutes that have been > upheld, and the statutes that have been thrown out. How can anyone > argue what the law should be when he has only a hazy idea of what the > law is now? How can someone argue that taxes should be reduced without knowing the US tax code? If people want to argue on a proscriptive basis, they need no understanding of present laws. However, if they want to argue on a constitutional basis, they need to know the cases that determined the interpretation of the constitution that was applied to the laws. Essentially, what we have are arguments suited to two of the branches of our government. Proscriptive arguments are suited to the legislative branch, which could enact federal laws or constitutional ammendments to make a clear statement. Constitutional arguments are suited to the judicial branch. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh