From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:43:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.055520.15806@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

}Actually, Galen, that's not what I said. I said "definitions". Plural.
}You said "definition". Singular.

I stand corrected.  You said "definitions."  I said "definition."  
Mark said "definition[s]."  

}Actually, I'm not quite sure whether the SC has upheld more than one
}definition, so perhaps it would be better to say "I'll pick mine from 
}those that the SC has upheld".
}
}Here's one that they HAVE upheld as Constitutional (and therefore, not
}impermissably vague):
}
}	That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child
}	may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or
}	artificial life-supportive systems. 
}
}	(V.A.M.S. (Mo.), $ 188.015, upheld in _Planned Parenthood of Central 
}	Mo. v. Danforth_, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788.o

}Works for me. Do you see anything wrong with it?

Given that the decision was made in reference to a case with surrounding
context, I doubt that it would be found impermissably vague in that case.
If, however, you were to try to apply the criteria universally I think
that it might be found to be rather vague.  Obviously, the definition
of viability will depend greatly on what artificial life-support systems
are available.  It may well work for you in a metropolitan area, or
where transportation is readily available.  There are areas, and I
have been in some of them in rural West Virginia and Virginia, where
no artificial life-support is available, at least you can't get to it
or get it to you in time to do anyone any good.


Kevin calls asking him to define "viability" a diversionary tactic.
I respond with:

}>Perhaps you consider whether you can detect a line you call "crucial" 
}>a diversionary tactic, but others might think it rather natural to
}>ask whether you can define or recognize it.
}
}Only about as "natural" as asking a cab driver whether he can design and
}build the vehicle he drives...

No, I don't expect a taxi driver to know how to design and build a 
car.  I do, however, expect a taxi driver to distinguish between
a taxi, a truck, or a moped, or whatever.

In much the same way, Kevin, I would expect you to know where your
dividing line is with respect to restrictions on abortion.  You claim
(now) it is in concert with one of the Supreme Court's definitions
of viability.  However, unless a given piece of legislation includes
the word "viability" in it you seem to have no way of telling 
whether you would oppose it or allow it to be decided by consensus.
I realize that you may recognize some upper and lower limits to
where you would place "viability," but there is a seemingly broad
area in which you would be at a loss.  I suspect that proposed
legislation instituting restrictions beginning at somewhere between
the 20th and 30th week might leave you in a bit of a pickle as
to whether or not you would oppose it. 

Sort of like a taxi driver responding to a question about whether
or not there are any available taxis outside with "well, I'm
not sure.  There are some vehicles with wheels out there.  I'll
leave it up to a vote."

Kevin, you don't know.  You claim it is a crucial point with you,
but you haven't much of an idea where it is.  You point at
definitions that have been upheld, and say that you'll take
one of those.  But you haven't chosen one to date, and you haven't
investigated when "viability" begins, at least not with respect
to abortion restrictions.  You claim that you would oppose 
abortion restrictions, up to a point, but either refuse or 
cannot fix a what point.  

One might sum up your position as that you would argue against
abortion restrictions up until some point between the 20th and 
30th weeks, or whenever you think there is a window of viability,
but after that you feel that abortion restrictions should be
decided by consensus.  Or, perhaps more correctly, after
viability you just don't care enough to have an opinion.

}I repeat the question, Galen: as long as I'm addressing content, instead of
}personality, why does it matter if I occasionally type the wrong name?

Sometimes we are not sure who you are talking to, and may suspect
you are simply blinded by your own rage.

}Is this crapola about my "name-o"s just a feeble attempt to cover up your
}own gaffes of logic, or gaping holes in your knowledge about law or medicine?

No, it isn't any attempt at a coverup.  It is simply a way of pointing
out that one who is so concerned about s's and the spelling of "two"
is quite capable of making much the same mistake.  You excuse it
by claiming you are "addressing content," when actually by naming
names you are addressing a particular person.  I think there is a
story about people who live in glass houses...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism