From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:31:34 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <oeR4iB4w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>I see a lot of paranoia in regard to the idea that Roe vs. Wade would
>be overturned by the Supreme Court.
>
>Know how many abortions would be stopped in the first week if RvW were
>overturned? NONE! If Roe vs. Wade were overturned abortion would still
>be legal in all fifty states until such time as the individual states
>decided to outlaw it (and many have already gone down on record as
>stating that they will NOT outlaw them. New York, for example.).
>
	And others (like Missouri, where I'm located at the moment) just can't
wait for the opportunity to display their compassion for embryos.  Oddly
enough this same state can't be bothered spending money to provide for decent
health care or schools for the post-born and thinks it's more important to
set minimum standards for dog kennels than for day care centers.  But I digress.

>I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
>one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
>to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
>travel to any state that still allowed them.
>
>What is the problem with that?
>
	Just a guess, but I'd say you're probably not old enough to remember
the Good Old Days(tm) before Roe v. Wade.  I forget how many states had legal
abortion but there weren't many, and just trying to get information on them
if you lived in one of those *other* states was no easy thing.
	And desperate women are just that -- desperate.  Many couldn't (and
still can't) afford to travel half-way across the country and sustain the
medical fees.  So the laws of supply and demand kicked in and illegal abortion
centers flourished.  Many women were desperate enough to use them.  Many were
permanently injured or even killed.
	Casino gambling is a poor analogy, although your choice of that as an
example *might* tell us something about your own attitudes on this issue.  A
fairer analogy might be press freedom.  So what if the first amendment is
struck down?  Individual states can still refuse to censor the news media.  
And people desperate for information without State control can still subscribe
to out-of-state papers.  And most electronic media are national anyway, so
why get hysterical?
	Please understand that for most of us on the pro-choice side, a
woman's right to determine what happens to her own body is fairly fundamental.
It's related to the concept (deeply embedded in our constitution and Bill of
Rights) that citizens ought to be secure in their persons and property.  Yes,
I know that the pro-life folks see the zygote/embryo/fetus as a separate
individual.  We could (and probably will) argue that one until the proverbial
cows come home.  All I'm trying to do here is answer your question about why
some of us are so "hysterical" (rather perjorative term there, yes?) about
the possibility of Roe V. Wade being overturned.
	Bottom line:  this is just as much a matter of principle for us on the
pro-choice side as it is for many of the pro-life folks.  Until you understand
that, IMHO, you don't really understand what the debate is about or why it
gets so heated.

> This is from
>     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
>who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion