From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Democrats support Roe v. Wade
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:52:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug22.194938.25106@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> > [.. Margolis ignores my quote, as expected ..]

Of course, Doug - you've posted it dozens of times, and it's been
rebutted many times.

> I quoted a Georgetown University law professor, and the quote
> demonstrates

Demonstrates?  No, it presents an opinion.

> > The Supreme Court has never made a ruling that would imply that the
> > first-trimester health considerations of Doe v. Bolton relate in any
> > way to the third-trimester health considerations of Roe v. Wade.
>
> False.  In Colautti v. Franklin,

That's the case that explicitly *rejected* your conjecture of abortion
on demand, when Justice Blackmun's opinion said something like:
   "It was during the litigation of Doe v. Bolton that the
   Court stressed the importance of allowing the physician
   absolute control in exercising his best medical judgment,
   and the Court emphasized the fact that although women do
   have a right to have an abortion, the right is not absolute
   and is not extended to women who want an abortion upon demand."
       =========================================================

> the Court used the liberal definition
> of the term ``health'', as defined in Doe v. Bolton, in a case
> primarily involving post-viability abortions.  My quote proves
> that you are wrong.

Hardly.  All it said was that the term "health" presents no problem of
vagueness.  And I said that the Supreme Court never made a ruling that
would imply that the first-trimester health considerations of Doe v.
Bolton relate in any way to the third-trimester health considerations of
*Roe v. Wade*.  Colautti v. Franklin is *not* Roe v. Wade.

> > Anti-abortionists are using scare tactics, trying to raise the specter
> > of women in their ninth month of pregnancy obtaining abortions because
> > they want to fit into a swimsuit.
>
> False.  As I pointed out before, I have never raised the "specter" of
> women in their ninth month of pregnancy obtaining abortions because
> they want to fit into a swimsuit.  That is your strawman.

And as *I* pointed out before, others in talk.abortion *have*; I never
claimed that *you* were the anti-abortionist mentioning swimsuits.
You *are* the one pretending that abortion on demand is possible.

> > There are only 3 doctors in the United States that perform third
> > trimester abortions.  They *only* perform them for reasons of serious
> > health problems.
>
> Please provide verifiable proof for this claim.

I've told you before that I'm not going to do your homework for you,
Doug.  You'll have to contact 60 Minutes yourself.

> Please explain your definition of "third trimester".

The last third of the pregnancy.

> Does "third trimester" include all viable fetuses?

By the third trimester, I think all fetuses could be considered viable,
if cost isn't a factor.

> Please explain how this so-called fact refutes my evidence

Please explain how my report of a news story constitutes a "so-called"
fact, and your posting of speculation and conjecture constitutes
"evidence".

> > Also, note that in order to show that the Democratic party supports
> > "unrestricted abortion on demand", you would not only have to prove
> > your conjecture regarding the two different cases,
>
> I have already shown that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand.

Far from it.

> > but you would also
> > have to prove that the Democratic party supports your rather bizarre
> > conception of Roe v. Wade instead of the more-common understanding
> > of it.
>
> The Democratic party supports Roe v. Wade.

True.

> Roe is essentially
> unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy.

False.

> Hence, the Democratic party supports unrestricted abortion on
> demand.

False.

Try this one instead, Doug.  The Democratic party supports Roe v. Wade,
which is generally understood to allow third-trimester restrictions on
abortion.  *If* the Supreme Court were to rule as you speculate (which
is extremely unlikely given the current makeup of the court), *then*
the Democratic party might well explicitly say that they support a policy
which allows for third-trimester abortions, and *not* one that allows
abortion on demand.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)