home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31676 alt.society.civil-liberty:5544
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!newstand.syr.edu!greeny
- From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
- Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand" (was Re: ACLU's "Campaign
- Message-ID: <1992Aug13.201417.12795@newstand.syr.edu>
- Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
- References: <1992Aug10.224742.2420@ncsu.edu> <1992Aug12.094133.15297@newstand.syr.edu> <1992Aug13.010501.23348@ncsu.edu>
- Distribution: na
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:14:16 EDT
- Lines: 198
-
- In article <1992Aug13.010501.23348@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-
- >> I did provide my sources of information in my first post. Go back and check
- >> them.
- >
- >You provided no quotes or sources which supported your argument. You did
- >provide some rambling personal opinions and vague conjecture based upon the
- >sources that you claimed to have read.
-
- Fine. Keep saying what you like. I included *plenty* of quotes in my last
- posting--so you won't be able to continue your (silly) argument that my
- statements are "vague conjecture" simply because they are not in the form
- of quotes. (And I note that you failed to respond to my request--that you
- cite specific examples of "conjecture" in my earlier post, that I did not,
- myself, make clear was conjecture.)
-
-
- >But you haven't even shown that it's an assumption. You need to at least
- >provide some evidence that the definition of "health" given in Doe does
- >not apply to Roe. You've only offered a personal opinion.
-
- That's just great. You make an assumption, and then suggest that it is *my*
- responsibility to prove that you had made an assumption!
-
-
- >I believe that I've shown that Doe v. Bolton is applicable to Roe. I don't
- >know why you keep ignoring the quote which I provided.
-
- You have not. You have *assumed* that the discussion of 'health' in Doe
- is relevant to all of Roe. The *argument* that you present takes that
- assumption and argues that the result is abortion-on-demand throughout the
- full term of a pregnancy.
-
-
- >>> Wrong. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 401 (1979).
- >
- >> This is more like it. I'll be glad to look up this case to see what it has
- >> to say, but you'll have to give me a little while since I don't dedicate
- >> my life to this matter.
- >
- >Allow me to do your work for you:
-
- I'm sure you'd *like* to do the work for me--as in, so that you can push the
- interpretation that you find convenient.
-
-
- > In this context, the word ``neces-
- > sary'' suggests that a particular technique must be indispensable
- > to the woman's life or health--not merely desirable--before it
- > may be adopted. And the ``life or health of the mother,'' as used
- > in 5(a) [of the Pennsylvania abortion statute], has not been con-
- > strued by the Courts of the Commonwealth to mean, nor does it
- > necessarily imply, that all factors relevant to the welfare of
- > the woman may be taken into account by the physician in making
- > his decision. Cf. United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 71-72;
- > Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S., at 191."
- >
- > --------------------
- >
- >In the last sentence of the opinion, the Justices cite Doe v. Bolton.
- >And note how the language ("all factors relevant to the welfare of
- >the woman") nearly matches the language given in Doe regarding the
- >definition of "health".
- >
- >Still think Doe is unimportant?
-
- Check your citations better. The reference to Doe is to a page discussing
- only the meaning of the word "necessary" and *not* the meaning of "health."
-
- And I note that you have conveniently left out the portions of the Colautti
- opinion (also written by Blackmun) that *explicitly* reject your argument
- that the Roe and Doe require states to provide abortion-on-demand to any
- woman at any time.
-
- See my last post for further information.
-
-
- >Here's another case that you can look up:
- >
- > Doe v. Rampton, 366 F. Supp. 189 (1973)
- >
- >In Doe v. Rampton, a federal district court ruled that a Utah prohibition
- >on post-viability abortions to preserve the mother's "mental health"
- >was unconstitutional.
-
- There's no question that a *serious* threat to mental health is covered by
- the "life or health" provision of Roe's specification for third trimester
- abortions. There are, in fact, several other lower court cases that support
- that finding.
-
- This says *nothing* to support your argument, however.
-
- You are trying to establish that Roe requires abortion-on-demand after
- viability. Doe v. Rampton offers absolutely no support for that position.
-
-
- >>>> And no one said that Roe and Doe weren't consistent.
- >
- >>> That's exactly what you're saying. You are claiming that two Supreme
- >>> Court decisions that were issued on the same day are inconsistent in
- >>> their use of the term "health". Please provide a SOURCE for that claim.
- >
- >> You either need to learn how to read, or you need to learn to be honest
- >> in debate.
- >
- >I am being honest. How else can your claim be interpreted?
-
- You are either extremely dull, or extremely disingenuous.
-
-
- In any case, as far consistency goes, you have yet to resolve the mother-of-
- all-inconsistencies presente dby your argument. Your argument suggests that
- the SC and Justice Blackmun (who wrote both the Roe and Doe opinions) set
- up an elaborate framework distinguishing between three stages of pregnancy in
- Roe, only to wipe it all out in the Doe opinion handed down at the same time.
-
- The suggestion would be laughable if you weren't serious!
-
-
- >> You should feel free to argue that I am wrong, and more importantly, to
- >> provide an argumnet as to how I am wrong.
- >
- >Your argument is wrong because otherwise the Supreme Court would be
- >using two different definitions of "health" from two cases that were
- >handed down on the same day. And I've given you a source which
- >directly conflicts with this claim, and you've ignored it.
-
- See my last post.
-
-
- >If you're unsatisfied because my source doesn't explain why Roe
- >should be read in light of Doe, then I can't help you. Perhaps
- >you should stop and think that such an explanation is not needed
- >because the answer is so obvious: Roe and Doe must be consistent
- >with each other.
-
- I'm glad you recognize it. Now apply this obvious answer to the
- incredible inconsistency suggested by your assumption (the one which
- you don't believe is an assumption).
-
-
- >>> Look, provide a *SOURCE* for your claims. This is getting very tiresome.
- >>> Your repeated assertions are not very convincing.
- >
- >> I did. You just don't want to acknowledge any sources that don't loyally
- >> tow the party line.
- >
- >No, you didn't provide any sources or quotes which supported your argument.
- >Look, even a *small* quote will suffice.
-
- Listen, if I provide a source, it makes *no* difference whether I quote
- or paraphrase. If you believe that I am falsifying paraphrases, then check
- the source--but it's just as easy to falsify quotes as it is to falsify
- paraphrases.
-
-
- >> This is primarily a discussion of law. I have serious doubts as to whether
- >> you are capable separating your political opinions from your evaluation
- >> of law.
- >
- >But it's not my "evaluation of law". The author which I quoted (and the
- >cases which I've cited above) are not my evaluations of the law. You,
- >on the other hand, have freely offered your own personal opinion of
- >the law without providing any sources to back up your claims.
-
- This is precisely the problem--you are just spouting off something you've
- have read and have made no effort to critically evaluate. And when someone
- else suggests that there are some problems with your argumnet, you rant and
- rave about "personal opinions" and "vague conjecture."
-
- You don't understand that various "evaluators" have their own biases (or
- perhaps just failures). As such, to determine what *you* believe to be
- the law (i.e., *your* evaluation of law) you need to examine the arguments
- presented by as many experts as you reasonably can, and then, in *your*
- mind, reconcile the differences to determine what *you* can believe.
-
- It's basically the same process used in any evaluation of history.
-
- If you are content to see just a single argument, accept it, and then
- mimic it, then you, as you say, you are *not* evaluating anything for
- yourself. Of course, you can't claim to be *at all* knowledgeable in what
- you mimic.
-
- You seem to completely lack *any* critical evaluation of the argument you
- present. But critical evaluation is the very *heart* of any scholarly
- examination.
-
- This is why I have stated before, I do not believe that you have *any*
- scholarly interest in the question at hand. Rather, I believe that you have
- latched on to a pseudo-scholarly position that is convenient for your
- political views.
-
-
- --
- J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
- (I like to put 'greeny' here,
- but my d*mn system wants a
- *real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
-