From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:06:55 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () wrote:
>>smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>> 
>>>Also generally, I believe that state actions that restrict individual
>>>liberty should be held to strict standards of justification.  I
>>>believe this is doubly true for actions that would impose costs
>>>disproportionately on traditionally disenfranchised groups.  With
>>>specific respect to abortion, I would add that the right of women to
>>>protection from the public health risk of illegal abortions and forced
>> 
>>The over 90% of illegal abortions performed before Roe v Wade  were done
>>by licensed physicians in good medical standing in their own offices.
>>The number of deaths before and after Roe v Wade showed no statistical
>>decrease in deaths resulting from abortion.

>Where exactly do you get these statistics from?  I would appreciate some 
>references, since your data conflicts with what I have read.


Two fascinating books you should pick up... Abortion- Questions and
Answers by Dr. & Mrs. Willke (pro-life supporters) and Abortion- The Clash
of Absolutes by L. H. Tribe (pro-abortion supporter).  Look very carefully
at the sources quoted in both books.  Note who quotes newspaper articles
and other not-so-respectable-sources and who quotes real medical and 
government studies. 

The specific source to the stat you asked about are the National Center
for Health Statistics and a report in the American Journal of Health, Vol 50
July 1960, page 949 (from Willke).

In addition, the "coat hanger" days will NEVER return anyways.  If abortions
went back to being illegal, the procedure is such that most idiots could do
it early in the pregnancy with almost perfect safety.

>>Stop perpetuating these lies.
>> 
>>>pregnancy far outweighs any right to state protection for the
>>>*potential citizens*.  State resources are scarce, and I find it
>> 
>>Ms. Smith consented to have sex.  In so doing she has surrendered her rights
>>to bodily integrity and personal autonomy.  

>Consent to sex does not equal consent to nine months of pregnancy.

Sure it does.  Nature decreed that long before you or I were ever born.
And since when does avoiding 9 months of pregnancy warrant ending 80 years
of someone's life?

>>There is a BIG difference 
>>between allowing someone to die through INaction and ACTIVELY hacking someone
>>to pieces.  Abortion is a physical violation of the bodily integrity and
>>personal autonomy of someone who had NO CHOICE but to be brought into existance.
>>This isn't the same thing as providing handouts to a welfare family.  If you
>>cut their public aid, they still have the chance to provide for themselves.
>>If they died, that would still have been at least partially their fault.
>>Now, if I walked into that welfare family house with an axe and took 20 minutes
>>to slowly cut each person to pieces, that would be murder.

>Of course it would.  Welfare families are citizens with legal rights.  Fetuses 
>are not.  Also, the welfare family you describe was living in a house, not 
>inside another human being causing physicial harm to him/her.

Ahh.. so in fact what you are saying is that legal rights depend solely on
place of residence?  The mother FORCED that baby to be placed inside her
body.  The mother therefore has a responsibility to give that baby a chance
to get out of her.  

>>You need to get a sense of proportion to your reality.
>> 
>>>impossible to justify using them to force one citizen to donate bodily
>>>resources to save another citizen.  The fact that the affected
>> 
>>Hmm... the draft has only involved citizens who were uniquely men.  Is this
>>equal protection under the law?  I think not.  
>> 
>>In fact, our MALE citizens have been drafted to save people who WEREN'T
>>even U.S. citizens... I think that is even more unequal.   Don't forget
>>that millions of MEN have died fighting for freedom so you can whine
>>about whether or not you can be promiscuous and hack babies to pieces.  

>Married, non-promiscuous women have abortions too.  And I don't for one second 
>believe that Mr. Mezias wants to "hack babies to pieces".  If you know of 
>anyone who IS hacking babies to pieces, I hope you will report them to the 
>police, since hacking babies to pieces is illegal.

Every abortionist in this country hacks babies to pieces.  Go watch an
abortion if you have the GUTS.

You completely ignored my establishment of a precedent for "forcing" one
citizen to use his body to save another.  Answer that for me.
The draft is still legal.  It can be enacted at any time.

>>>citizens would be uniquely women also raises concerns regarding equal
>>>protection under the law.  In addition, absent a precedent for such
>>>restrictions on citizens for the sake of other *citizens*, I find it
>>>hard to advocate policies to `save' *potential* citizens with the
>>>bodily servitude of citizens.
>> 
>>Once again, Ms. Smith went and had sex without using her brain.  

>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  You keep refering to a woman who 
>consented to sex.  What kind of punishment would you hand out to men who 
>consent to sex?  Do you think only women should suffer bodily harm for the
>horrible "crime" of consenting to sex?

Pregnancy is not a punishment.  Pregnancy is a responsibility one must
accept for one's actions.  Men who consent to sex should be legally
responsible to support the child emotionally and financially.

>>Murder is murder.  

>Sure is.  However, abortion is not murder.

*shrug*  Not to those who can't grow up and be responsible adults.

>>There is no such thing as a potential citizen except in the legal
>>sense.  Morally and scientifically life begins at fertilization, and so does
>>citizenhood.                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^   
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Try claiming a tax-deduction for a fetus, and you'll learn that citizenhood 
>does NOT begin at fertilization.

Duh!  Another witless comment.  In the previous sentence I said that preborn
babies weren't LEGALLY citizens.  That does nothing to change the moral
and scientific evidence that they should be.  

>>>SJM
>>Edward Simmonds

>				.... Heather.

This society is going down the hill MORALLY.  All of these problems stem
from the same thing: lack of moral absolutes.  Abortion is a great way to
escape maturity, regardless of your actual age.  



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers

Newsgroups: talk.abortion