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: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:14:16 EDT

In article <1992Aug13.010501.23348@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I did provide my sources of information in my first post.  Go back and check
>> them.  
>
>You provided no quotes or sources which supported your argument.  You did 
>provide some rambling personal opinions and vague conjecture based upon the 
>sources that you claimed to have read.  

Fine.  Keep saying what you like.  I included *plenty* of quotes in my last
posting--so you won't be able to continue your (silly) argument that my
statements are "vague conjecture" simply because they are not in the form
of quotes.  (And I note that you failed to respond to my request--that you
cite specific examples of "conjecture" in my earlier post, that I did not,
myself, make clear was conjecture.)


>But you haven't even shown that it's an assumption.  You need to at least
>provide some evidence that the definition of "health" given in Doe does
>not apply to Roe.  You've only offered a personal opinion.

That's just great.  You make an assumption, and then suggest that it is *my*
responsibility to prove that you had made an assumption! 


>I believe that I've shown that Doe v. Bolton is applicable to Roe.  I don't
>know why you keep ignoring the quote which I provided.  

You have not.  You have *assumed* that the discussion of 'health' in Doe
is relevant to all of Roe.  The *argument* that you present takes that
assumption and argues that the result is abortion-on-demand throughout the
full term of a pregnancy.


>>> 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.
>
>Allow me to do your work for you:

I'm sure you'd *like* to do the work for me--as in, so that you can push the
interpretation that you find convenient.


>   In this context, the word  ``neces-
>   sary'' suggests that a particular technique must be indispensable
>   to the woman's life or health--not  merely  desirable--before  it
>   may be adopted. And the ``life or health of the mother,'' as used
>   in 5(a) [of the Pennsylvania abortion statute], has not been con-
>   strued  by  the  Courts  of the Commonwealth to mean, nor does it
>   necessarily imply, that all factors relevant to  the  welfare  of
>   the  woman  may  be taken into account by the physician in making
>   his decision. Cf. United States v. Vuitch, 402  U.S.,  at  71-72;
>   Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S., at 191."
>
>   --------------------
>
>In the last sentence of the opinion, the Justices cite Doe v. Bolton.
>And note how the language ("all factors relevant to the welfare of
>the woman") nearly matches the language given in Doe regarding the
>definition of "health". 
>
>Still think Doe is unimportant? 

Check your citations better.  The reference to Doe is to a page discussing
only the meaning of the word "necessary" and *not* the meaning of "health."

And I note that you have conveniently left out the portions of the Colautti
opinion (also written by Blackmun) that *explicitly* reject your argument
that the Roe and Doe require states to provide abortion-on-demand to any
woman at any time.

See my last post for further information.


>Here's another case that you can look up: 
>
>    Doe v. Rampton, 366 F. Supp. 189 (1973)
>
>In Doe v. Rampton, a federal district court ruled that a Utah prohibition
>on post-viability abortions to preserve the mother's "mental health"
>was unconstitutional.  

There's no question that a *serious* threat to mental health is covered by
the "life or health" provision of Roe's specification for third trimester
abortions.  There are, in fact, several other lower court cases that support
that finding.

This says *nothing* to support your argument, however.

You are trying to establish that Roe requires abortion-on-demand after
viability.  Doe v. Rampton offers absolutely no support for that position.


>>>> 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 am being honest.  How else can your claim be interpreted? 

You are either extremely dull, or extremely disingenuous.


In any case, as far consistency goes, you have yet to resolve the mother-of-
all-inconsistencies presente dby your argument.  Your argument suggests that
the SC and Justice Blackmun (who wrote both the Roe and Doe opinions) set
up an elaborate framework distinguishing between three stages of pregnancy in
Roe, only to wipe it all out in the Doe opinion handed down at the same time.

The suggestion would be laughable if you weren't serious!


>> You should feel free to argue that I am wrong, and more importantly, to
>> provide an argumnet as to how I am wrong.  
>
>Your argument is wrong because otherwise the Supreme Court would be
>using two different definitions of "health" from two cases that were
>handed down on the same day.  And I've given you a source which
>directly conflicts with this claim, and you've ignored it.  

See my last post.


>If you're unsatisfied because my source doesn't explain why Roe
>should be read in light of Doe, then I can't help you.  Perhaps
>you should stop and think that such an explanation is not needed
>because the answer is so obvious: Roe and Doe must be consistent
>with each other.  

I'm glad you recognize it.  Now apply this obvious answer to the
incredible inconsistency suggested by your assumption (the one which
you don't believe is an assumption).


>>> 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.
>
>No, you didn't provide any sources or quotes which supported your argument. 
>Look, even a *small* quote will suffice. 

Listen, if I provide a source, it makes *no* difference whether I quote
or paraphrase.  If you believe that I am falsifying paraphrases, then check
the source--but it's just as easy to falsify quotes as it is to falsify
paraphrases.


>> 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.
>
>But it's not my "evaluation of law".  The author which I quoted (and the
>cases which I've cited above) are not my evaluations of the law. You,
>on the other hand, have freely offered your own personal opinion of
>the law without providing any sources to back up your claims. 

This is precisely the problem--you are just spouting off something you've
have read and have made no effort to critically evaluate.  And when someone
else suggests that there are some problems with your argumnet, you rant and
rave about "personal opinions" and "vague conjecture."

You don't understand that various "evaluators" have their own biases (or
perhaps just failures).  As such, to determine what *you* believe to be
the law (i.e., *your* evaluation of law) you need to examine the arguments
presented by as many experts as you reasonably can, and then, in *your*
mind, reconcile the differences to determine what *you* can believe.

It's basically the same process used in any evaluation of history.

If you are content to see just a single argument, accept it, and then
mimic it, then you, as you say, you are *not* evaluating anything for
yourself.  Of course, you can't claim to be *at all* knowledgeable in what
you mimic.

You seem to completely lack *any* critical evaluation of the argument you
present.  But critical evaluation is the very *heart* of any scholarly
examination.

This is why I have stated before, I do not believe that you have *any*
scholarly interest in the question at hand.  Rather, I believe that you have
latched on to a pseudo-scholarly position that is convenient for your
political views.


-- 
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