From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:48:54 GMT

smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Dec24.014033.13747@ncsu.edu>
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>>Here's a portion of a fascinating article on the makings
>>of the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.  The article
>>reveals that Justice Blackmun, who is the principle 
>>architect behind Roe, wrote in a private memo that any
>>dividing line is ``equally arbitrary''.  Justice Stewart,
>>who joined Blackmun in the majority opinion, criticized 
>>parts of the decision as being ``legislative''.

>All rights are socially constructed.  Well-established socially
>constructed principles may seem like part of the order of the
>universe, e.g., traditional mothering roles for women.  However, the
>seeming permanence of such perceptions of objectivity should not belie
>the inherent exercise of social power by one group, state actors, over
>another group, citizens.  Generally, we do not give state actors the
>power to restrict medical procedures for reasons other than the public
>health.  In particular, there is no precedent for a government
>intervention that forces one group of citizens to sacrifice their
>bodies to support other *citizens*.  Forced pregnancy laws go beyond

Apparently somebody has never heard of military conscription.

>this: They would legally compel one group of citizens to use their
>bodies to support *potential citizens*.  

>Also generally, I believe that state actions that restrict individual
>liberty should be held to strict standards of justification.  I
>believe this is doubly true for actions that would impose costs
>disproportionately on traditionally disenfranchised groups.  With
>specific respect to abortion, I would add that the right of women to
>protection from the public health risk of illegal abortions and forced

The over 90% of illegal abortions performed before Roe v Wade  were done
by licensed physicians in good medical standing in their own offices.
The number of deaths before and after Roe v Wade showed no statistical
decrease in deaths resulting from abortion.

Stop perpetuating these lies.


>pregnancy far outweighs any right to state protection for the
>*potential citizens*.  State resources are scarce, and I find it

Ms. Smith consented to have sex.  In so doing she has surrendered her rights
to bodily integrity and personal autonomy.  There is a BIG difference 
between allowing someone to die through INaction and ACTIVELY hacking someone
to pieces.  Abortion is a physical violation of the bodily integrity and
personal autonomy of someone who had NO CHOICE but to be brought into existance.
This isn't the same thing as providing handouts to a welfare family.  If you
cut their public aid, they still have the chance to provide for themselves.
If they died, that would still have been at least partially their fault.
Now, if I walked into that welfare family house with an axe and took 20 minutes
to slowly cut each person to pieces, that would be murder.

You need to get a sense of proportion to your reality.

>impossible to justify using them to force one citizen to donate bodily
>resources to save another citizen.  The fact that the affected

Hmm... the draft has only involved citizens who were uniquely men.  Is this
equal protection under the law?  I think not.  

In fact, our MALE citizens have been drafted to save people who WEREN'T
even U.S. citizens... I think that is even more unequal.   Don't forget
that millions of MEN have died fighting for freedom so you can whine
about whether or not you can be promiscuous and hack babies to pieces.  

>citizens would be uniquely women also raises concerns regarding equal
>protection under the law.  In addition, absent a precedent for such
>restrictions on citizens for the sake of other *citizens*, I find it
>hard to advocate policies to `save' *potential* citizens with the
>bodily servitude of citizens.

Once again, Ms. Smith went and had sex without using her brain.  Murder
is murder.  There is no such thing as a potential citizen except in the legal
sense.  Morally and scientifically life begins at fertilization, and so does
citizenhood.

>SJM

Edward Simmonds


- My opinions are my own... but they are also perfectly correct -

Newsgroups: talk.abortion