From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Dougie spews the usual lies
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:43:21 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1992Nov20.005417.9449@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.213408.3653@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>> There were about a half-dozen refutations of your sources last summer, Doug.
>> J. Greenfield in particular showed how the meaning of the texts you quoted
>> changed completely when restored to their contexts.
>
>I remember Jeff Greenfield as being the only person who attempted to
>address my sources.

Now Dougie, lots of people have shown you to be a liar in talk.abortion.
You just like to post your lies to a bunch of groups (as you did here) and
then set the followup to talk.abortion only (as you did here) so that
people in other groups won't see the proof that you're lying and might
believe you.

>None of my sources had been taken out of context.

In article <1992Aug12.235727.21336@newstand.syr.edu>
           greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) wrote:
#Doe v. Bolton, specifically, did *not* discuss, suggest or
#intend that the interpretation of the term "health" in the
#context of the Georgia statute was to be used as the
#interpretation of "health" with respect to the exceptions
#required by Roe for post-viability abortion prohibitions.
#
#Colautti v. Franklin is a case primarily involving the power
#of a state to establish a definition of fetal viability.
#Some tangential discussion of the term "health" is included,
#but the court opinion specifically rejects the idea that
#there is an absolute right to abortion on demand.
#
#These facts absolutely contradict Mr. Holtsinger's claims.

In article <1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu>
           greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) wrote:
#Why didn't you also cite the paragraph that *immediately* follows in the
#Roe opinion?
#
#"On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
#argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
#terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
#whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."
#
#This alone destroys your entire argument.  But just in case anyone is
#interested in the remainder of the paragraph:
#
#"Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in
#regulating the abortion decision, or no interest 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 potential life.  At some point in pregnancy, these
#respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain
#regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.  The
#privacy right involved, 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 an 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. [citations omitted]"
#
#
#In short, this shows that
#
#  1) Mr. Holtsinger's entire argument is without merit,
#
#  and
#
#  2) Mr. Holtsinger is shamefully deceitful in citing
#     quotes out of context--he just plain lies.

>> No, I am telling you that you are a liar.
>
>I'm simply quoting Kathyrn Kolbert, attorney for the ACLU.  You're calling
>her a liar.

Again you demonstrate your problems with reading comprehension.  He said that
you, Dear Old Doug, are a liar.  Not anyone else.

>> Indeed.  It's been pointed out before that less than 100 abortions are
>> performed in the U.S. after the 24th week.  The source of that tidbit of
>> information is the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
>
>There are several thousand abortions performed annually after the 21st week
>of pregnancy (viability starts at around the 22nd to 23rd week).

What percentage of 22 week preemies survive, Dougie?  And at what cost?
The fact that they were able to get one to survive (at an expense running
into hundreds of thousands of dollars) does not mean that you can consider
the average 22 week fetus to be externally viable.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion