From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand" (was Re: ACLU's "Campaign
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 09:41:33 EDT

In article <1992Aug10.224742.2420@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>> The quote that you provided was not a reasoned argument reagrding the
>> applicability of the Doe discussion of "health" to the Roe.  It *assumed*
>> that the discussion was applicable, and then went on to provide an
>> argument as to what the implications of the *assumption* were.
>
>If this "assumption" by the author is incorrect, then surely you can
>provide a SOURCE which supports your claim? (I might point out the 
>author which I quoted is a professor of law at Georgetown University.
>What are your qualifications?)  

I did provide my sources of information in my first post.  Go back and check
them.  I have questioned the assumption--but you will note that, unlike you,
I have not made any *definitive* claims regarding the assumption.

I have only claimed that, given the absolute lack of evidence supporting
the assumption in terms of the actual practice of abortion laws, the onus
is upon *you* to show your assumption to be reasonable.

And as I have pointed out before, scholarly guise can (and often has in the
past) been used on *extremely* biased material.  A law professor (who likely
is pre-disposed to a pro-life position) is hardly the be-all and end-all
of SC precedent interpretation.


>> Furthermore, since no court and no law (to the best of my knowledge) has
>> ever reflected the interpretation that you support--
>
>Wrong.  See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 401 (1979).  

This is more like it.  I'll be glad to look up this case to see what it has
to say, but you'll have to give me a little while since I don't dedicate
my life to this matter.


>> And no one said that Roe and Doe weren't consistent.  
>
>That's exactly what you're saying.  You are claiming that two Supreme
>Court decisions that were issued on the same day are inconsistent in
>their use of the term "health".  Please provide a SOURCE for that claim.

You either need to learn how to read, or you need to learn to be honest
in debate.

I have made *no* claim of inconsistency.  I have suggested that it is
possible (and appeared to me as though) the Doe opinion was saying,

"The Georgia statute *may* mean by 'health'..."

This would not preclude the Court from using health differently, in a
different context.

You should feel free to argue that I am wrong, and more importantly, to
provide an argumnet as to how I am wrong.  But let's not play games where
you purposefully misrepresent what I say to support your own theses.


>Look, provide a *SOURCE* for your claims.  This is getting very tiresome. 
>Your repeated assertions are not very convincing.  

I did.  You just don't want to acknowledge any sources that don't loyally
tow the party line.

And unlike you, I *do* use sources written by individuals with an
opposite/different political viewpoint--because, while (in a case such as
this) I do have my own political opinions, I try very hard to avoid letting
those opinions color my understanding of what the *law* (whether it be by
statute or by precedent) actually is.

This is primarily a discussion of law.  I have serious doubts as to whether
you are capable separating your political opinions from your evaluation
of law.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion