Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!bellcore!petrus!magic!joevax!nvc!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Legality of Late Abortions (Roe V. Wade)
Message-ID: <2057@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 18:43:34 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2057
Posted: Wed Nov  6 18:43:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 05:32:30 EST
References: <1989@reed.UUCP> <367@cylixd.UUCP> <63@uscvax.UUCP> <64@uscvax.UUCP> <1028@bunker.UUCP> <1984@pyuxd.UUCP> <1035@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 44

>>>*        3. During the last months of pregnancy, when the baby is
>>>*           clearly able to survive outside the womb -- is viable --

>>And note the asterisked lines above.  Even anti-abortionists understand
>>the notion of viability of the fetus, when it becomes viable, and what
>>viability means in terms of autonomous existence and rights as a human being.
>>[ROSEN]

> I.e., even pro-life advocates understand what the law currently says.
> Is the law always right? [SAMUELSON]

In this case, it is.  Clearly.  So bringing up "Is the law always right?"
without any evidence that it is not so in this case is simply obscuring the
issue with manipulative rhetoric, of which Gary IS the acknowledged master.
Even Rosenblatt can't touch him there.  :-(

>>(Odd that NO ONE responded to my article about the Arizona Supreme Court, and
>>the way their wording and use of the word "viable" makes clear the point of
>>demarcation of "lifehood" in terms of being a full fledged human being.  Not
>>even Matt Rosenblatt...)

> The demarcation of "lifehood" was dismissed as irrelevant by the U.S.
> Supreme Court.  The majority opinion stated that they "need not answer
> the difficult question of when life begins."  The Court couldn't answer
> that question and still reach the conclusion they wanted to reach.

The conclusion they wanted to reach?  You make it sound like lawyers and judges
think like religionists!  :-(  No matter, clearly the judgment mentioned
before does not make a judgment about what that point is, but it directly
acknowledges that prior to viability, these things (these rights) do not apply.

> If, for example, they had said that the fetus becomes a human being when
> it is viable, they would have had to conclude that its life was protected
> by the Constitution, and thus rule that abortion of a viable infant was
> unconstitutional.

And that is pretty much how abortion law works in this country today,
with third trimester abortions only taking place in explicit life-death
circumstances.  Problem with that?
-- 
And now, a hidden satanic message:    _
				9L|^6| _
			       W6Vn|na| 622
						Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr