NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/34301

Text File | 1992-09-01 | 3.8 KB | 83 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!agate!ames!sgi!wdl1!bard
From: [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: The Sloppy Quotes Thread from HELL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:12:52 GMT
Lines: 70

[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# [e-mail] writes:
# >[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# >> [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >>>[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
# >>>> The following analysis of Roe v. Wade, written before the Court's
# >>>> decision in Colautti v. Franklin, suggests that Roe v. Wade permits
# >>>> a woman to have the physician purposely kill a viable fetus during
# >>>> an abortion procedure.
#
# >>> ...when the health of the mother is endangered by the prospect of
# >>> giving birth, as the deleted analysis by some lawyer type admits.
#
# >> No, you didn't read the analysis carefully.  The author suggests
# >> that Roe v. Wade allows the woman to have a viable fetus purposely
# >> killed, even if her physical health is not threatened:
#
# > No, the author did not.  He didn't even *suggest* that.
#
# Yes, he did suggest that Roe v. Wade allows the woman to have a
# viable fetus purposely killed during the abortion.  Look here:

(*This* time, you left out the phrase `even if her physical health is
threatened.'  Without even using the idea that every pregnancy poses
physical health risks as an arguing point, I still submit you're
wrong.  See below.)

# >>   "In some cases, however, the risks posed to the mother may be the
# >>    same whether the fetus is saved or destroyed[97]. In this setting,
# >>    the physician's choice will not be dictated by a judgement as to
# >>    the safest medical procedure. Even under such conditions, it can
# >>    be argued that Roe bars the state from restricting the physician's
# >>    option to deliberately destroy the viable fetus. "
#
# > You deliberately left out the last two sentences of the paragraph, and
# > the following paragraph where the idea is completed:
#
# The author goes on to suggest that Roe v. Wade might not allow a woman
# to have a fetus purposely killed because that would be akin to infanticide.
# His suggestion that the states could require the physician to employ
# the abortion technique which would most likely result in the abortion
# of a live fetus appears to be the only state regulation which could
# protect viable fetuses.  But that type of regulation was struck down
# by the Supreme Court in Colautti v. Franklin.

And *here*, in the paragraph above, you finally scratch the truth that
any normal, sane person arrived at the first time s/he reads the
analysis you posted.

However, nowhere in the above paragraph do you explain how the
analysis of Roe v. Wade you posted suggests the Supreme Court created
a woman's right to have her viable fetus purposely killed EVEN IF HER
PHYSICAL HEALTH IS NOT THREATENED.

You're grasping for straws.

Besides, this is a NON-ISSUE, Mr. Holtsinger.  Abortions of viable
fetuses are not the fundamental `problem' pro-lifers want to solve, is
it?  Are viable fetus abortions the ONLY abortions that trouble you,
Mr. Holtsinger?  (You may notice that that last sentence was a direct
question.)

--
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman