From: rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 01:38:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Apr10.223308.5691@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.185433.14853@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr06.172500.3090@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>>rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>
>>>I am puzzled by your sig. having pro-choice anti-Roe. These would seem
>>>to be opposites in common usage. Please explain.
>>
>>I'm in favor of a woman having the ability to choose abortion, against
>>the idea that this is mandated by the Constitution.
>>
>
>What is the consensus on the net for a national abortion law?
>
>I am pro-life but think this issue is tearing the country apart.
>I would like to have it settled. I don't think having 50 different
>state laws is right.  It just favors those people who have the 
>money to travel to a state with more liberal laws.
>
>My idea of a compromise:
>
>	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.
>	(2) Legal abortion health of the mother
>	(3) Legal abortion rape/incest
>
>I still believe abortion is wrong but legalizing any action
>does not make it morally right. It leaves the decision to
>the mother.
>
>--

In the original Roe v Wade case, the Supreme Court already did almost
exactly that. They indicated that the right to abortion in the first
trimester, 12 weeks be permitted, in the second trimester they assigned
the task to doctors to decide with the patient if undo health risk or
emotional risk warranted an abortion, and in the third trimester, they
forbade it almost entirely. They spent months on that decision hearing
from everyone and their brother's expert witness on conception and
fetal development and moral and even religious questions. They ruled
and it was this compromise. We lived with it a long time, and we would
have rightly been represented by the people in this nation if it
hadn't been for the bastards, Reagan and Bush packing the court with
right to lifers with a one issue agenda. As it is the court is in
danger of being ignored by the people and disrespected for the next
thirty years as the voters grow more liberal, which is the current
swing and has been since the sixties. The only reason that those
bastards got to do that is the coincidence of an inordinate number of
justices on the bench had to retire or died. And so they may have
destroyed the proper checks and balances system in the federal
government regarding issues like these in a way that will have lasting
consequences as nasty as the discrediting of the executive branch in
the Vietnam war and Watergate scandal. If the nuts on the bench
currently don't wake up and hear the people, who in every legitimate
neutral poll, Harris and Gallup, e.g., were over 66% in favor of the
right to an abortion, then they may find a million people on their
lawn some morning in a very bad mood. The people of this country set
fire to the court building twice in US history, with the justices in
it, they can do it again.
Newsgroups: soc.women