home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54868 alt.abortion.inequity:6364
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!concert!rock!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
- From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
- Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
- Message-ID: <1993Jan9.173331.8098@ncsu.edu>
- Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
- Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
- Organization: North Carolina State University
- References: <1993Jan7.024809.22609@ncsu.edu> <1993Jan8.151835.18395@midway.uchicago.edu> <1993Jan9.001223.11039@ncsu.edu> <1993Jan9.030056.16855@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Distribution: na
- Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:33:31 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1993Jan9.030056.16855@midway.uchicago.edu>
- thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
- >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
- >>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
- >>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-
- >>>> So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
- >>>> in a way that women aren't?
-
- >>> I'm sorry, I'm unaware of a child support law that distinguishes
- >>> between men and women, rather than custodial parents and non-
- >>> custodial parents.
-
- >> Neither child support laws nor anti-abortion laws are intended to
- >> burden one sex more than another, but they both have that effect.
-
- > Well, no court has ever considered the equal protection implications
- > of abortion laws, so the point is mostly moot,
-
- So why did you raise the point in the first place?
-
-