From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: One track mind
Summary: ..in which I ask dsh questions and explain why I think he should answer them.
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:20:58 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# It should be painfully obvious that if a woman is denied
# an abortion, she will quite likely suffer emotional distress.
# She can say "I need an abortion because my emotional health
# will suffer if I don't get one".  Instant abortion-on-demand. 

In your twisted, narrow-minded understanding of what `abortion on
demand' means...

If she finds a doctor who agrees that her psychological health will
suffer if she does not have an abortion, a woman can legally have an
abortion after fetal viability.  Or so it would seem.

It also seems from what I've seen posted here, that Roe vs. Wade
simply DOES NOT grant doctors total license to perform post-viability
abortions pell-mell -- which is what you are disingenuously implying.

-----

To change the subject (I know this is your favorite subject, Mr.
Holtsinger, so I won't stray too far), what's your problem with Roe
vs. Wade anyway?

Let's presume you've got a live one here, Mr. Holtsinger?  For the
sake of argument, I'll agree with your narrow interpretation of Roe
and Doe that, combined, they recognize an unrestricted right to
abortion on demand throughout pregnancy.

Perhaps you could answer these questions:

	-- Do you want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned?

	-- If so, why?

	-- If not, why not?

	-- Do you merely want to see the Supreme Court roll back
	   abortion rights so that post-viability abortions are not
	   available `on demand? but with everything else remaining
	   intact.   

	-- If so, why?

	-- If not, why not?

	-- What do you think should be done to remedy the problems you
	   have with Roe vs. Wade?

My expectation is that you don't have the cajones to answer all these
questions, Mr. Holtsinger.  So far, the only opinion we have you on
record for is that you do not support Roe vs. Wade.  If you wish to
make the claim that your purpose here in talk.abortion is to influence
the debate to promote the idea that Roe vs. Wade should be changed,
you should TELL US HOW IT SHOULD BE CHANGED and *WHY* IT SHOULD BE
CHANGED.  Simply saying, ``It's currently abortion on demand
throughout pregnancy,'' means nothing to those of us who don't see
that as a problem IN ISOLATION.  Explain why that's something that
should change, and what changes should be made, and perhaps I, at
least, will stop calling you a mindless automaton enslaved to your sex
fascist masters in Virginia Beach.  Of course, then again, perhaps you
already know that your position is unpopular, and that admitting to it
will mean that you'll be mired in megabytes of flamage from
pro-choicers... as if that isn't the case now.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

P.S.  Please Mr. Holtsinger.  I really want you to answer these
questions without me having to get insistent.  I don't look forward to
the prospect of demanding answers to them, as I have done in the past.
I implore you.  Please answer the questions soonest.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion