From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 22:01:16 GMT

In <1992Sep8.131417.17245@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>In article <29505@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep4.173611.6427@ncsu.edu>
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>> 
>> >I don't understand how you can casually dismiss my unbiased sources 
>> >which show that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout 
>> >the term of pregnancy and then expect me to accept your pro-abortion
>> >sources.  (And please leave the preceeding sentence intact, if your
>> >honesty allows you to do so).  
>> 
>> Easy: You haven't provided unbiased sources to support your claim.

>Here's my unbiased source:

Justice Blackmun is hardly unbiased.  Chief Justice Burger swallowed the
passage you see below hook, line, and sinker, then in his _Thornburgh_
dissent he said we seem to have already moved beyond abortion on demand.

Blackmun's words below are, to use one of his own pet phrases,
*pure ipse dixit*.  His subsequent actions speak a lot louder.

True, he has never advocated abortion on demand in so many words.
And maybe his powers of rationalization are such that he really thinks
we do not have it.

>                                ROE v. WADE
>            410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)
> 
>     Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in
>     part:
>[...] 
>          On the basis of elements such as these,  appellants and  some
>     amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is en-
>     titled  to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time,  in  whatever
>     way,  and for whatever reason she alone chooses.  With this we  do
>     not agree.  Appellants'  arguments that Texas either has no  valid
>     interest at all in regulating the abortion decision,  or no inter-
>     est strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's  sole
>     determination,  is unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing
>     a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation  in
>     areas  protected by that right is appropriate.  As noted above,  a
>     State  may  properly assert important  interests  in  safeguarding
>     health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting poten-
>     tial life.  At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests
>     become  sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the  fac-
>     tors  that  govern the abortion decision.  The privacy  right  in-
>     volved,  therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact,  it is
>     not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has
>     unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close
>     relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the
>     Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited
>     right of this kind in the past.  Jacobson v.  Massachusetts (1905)
>     (vaccination); Buck v. Bell (1927) (sterilization).
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)