XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com   
      
   On 5 Dec 2003 10:00:11 -0800, moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com (Moorehead   
   Johnson) wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   ==>I HAVE spoken to many, many women who've had abortions.  With one   
   ==>exception, virtually all regretted it.   
      
   		No doubt they regretted the *necessity* of   
   		having to have the procedure. Who wouldn't?   
      
   ==>  Some, like Norma McCorvey   
   ==>herself ('Roe') decided to become pro-life afterward.   
      
   		Brainwashed by the anti-choice forces, as we   
   		all know.   
      
   ==>  But back to the   
   ==>original issue - you seemed to imply that masses of women would simply   
   ==>rush across the border to Canada to have abortions if they were   
   ==>illegal in the US.  I'm saying some might, if they live near the   
   ==>border, but most probably wouldn't.   
      
   		No, most would do what they used to do --   
   		patronize back-alley abortionists whose   
   		butchery used to result in the death or   
   		permanent sterility of many of their clients.   
      
   		Now that's a great improvement over what you   
   		have now, right?   
      
   ==> Roe herself brought the suit   
   ==>against the Attorney General of Texas because she didn't want to   
   ==>travel to a state where abortion was legal, like California or New   
   ==>York.   
      
   		Yes.  She felt at the time that she shouldn't have   
   		to travel to another jurisdiction to obtain a medical   
   		procedure that she had a constitutional right to   
   		obtain in her own.  The Supreme Court, as you   
   		will recall, agreed with her.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   ==>> ==>Doubtful.  Roe v. Wade was brought about in the first place by a Texas   
   ==>> ==>woman who was pregnant and too lazy to get to California for a legal   
   ==>> ==>abortion.   
      
   IG:   
   ==>> 		Now there's a stone lie if I've ever heard one.   
      
   ==>You obviously haven't read the background of Roe v. Wade. Allow me to   
   ==>quote for you:   
   ==>   
   ==>"Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to   
   ==>terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent,   
   ==>licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was   
   ==>unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not   
   ==>appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that   
   ==>she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to   
   ==>secure a legal abortion under safe conditions."   
      
   		As I said, the assertion that McCorvey was "too lazy"   
   		to travel to California for an abortion is a stone   
   		lie; a dishonourable attempt at slander, and   
   		unworthy of even an anti-choice fanatic.   
      
   ==>Now, would you like a tall glass of shutup juice to go with that   
   ==>steaming plate of crow you've just been fed?   
      
   		The one who was just shown to be a liar is   
   		you, not me.  Marinate that crow before   
   		tucking in, it'll tenderize the meat.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   IG:   
   ==>> 		The Constitution guarantees the right of privacy.   
   ==>> 		That's what the SCOTUS upheld in Roe vs.   
   ==>> 		Wade.  The only way that could be overturned   
   ==>> 		would be if a future court decided, perversely,   
   ==>> 		that a woman has less constitutional right to   
   ==>> 		privacy than a man.   
      
   ==>The right to privacy protects individual American citizen, from   
   ==>illegal searches and seizures by the state, as it should, and it   
   ==>prevents the state from spying, snooping, etc., without the proper   
   ==>judicial warrants.  There is NOTHING in the Consitution that would   
   ==>lead ANYONE to reasonably conclude that medical conditions fall under   
   ==>the umbrella of a right to privacy.  You no more have a   
   ==>constitutionally-protected right to abort a pregnancy under the guise   
   ==>of a 'right to privacy' than you have a right to sell your body for   
   ==>sex under the guise of a 'right to privacy'.   
      
   		You are full of crap.   
      
   		Allow ME to quote for YOU:   
      
   From the SCOTUS Roe vs. Wade ruling:   
      
   "3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that   
   except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's   
   behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other   
   interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth   
   Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy,   
   including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though   
   the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in   
   protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of   
   human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling'   
   point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164 .   
      
   "(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first   
   trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to   
   the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician."   
      
   		Now, what part of "right to privacy" do you   
   		find so difficult to understand?   
      
   ==>I find your allusion to criminalizing abortion as somehow denying a   
   ==>woman rights that a man has to be particularly bizarre.  What rights   
   ==>does a man enjoy that a woman does not, if abortion is illegal?   
      
   		Privacy, due process, as the SCOTUS said.   
      
   IG:   
   ==>> 		Laws that are in disrepute and widely   
   ==>> 		ignored are worse than no laws at all, since they   
   ==>> 		breed disrespect for law in general.  Can you   
   ==>> 		spell p-r-o-h-i-b-i-t-i-o-n?  People continued   
   ==>> 		to drink, just as people today continue to use   
   ==>> 		marijuana and various illegal drugs, and will   
   ==>> 		continue to do so, because the law, in these areas   
   ==>> 		is, as the man said, an ass.   
      
   ==>And people continue to rape....murder....assault...drunk   
   ==>driving....how far do you want to take this? Laws will ALWAYS be   
   ==>ignored by certain members of the population.  And with respect to   
   ==>p-r-o-h-i-b-i-t-i-o-n, it took a constitutional a-m-e-n-d-m-e-n-t to   
   ==>first deny and then restore the right to drink alcohol beverages in   
   ==>this country.  And if the proborts want to introduce a Constitutional   
   ==>amendment that states that we as a society value a woman's convenience   
   ==>over the right of a human life to develop, I say let them go for   
   ==>it....   
      
   		Fortunately, they don't have to.  The right is already   
   		there, safely ensconced within the Fourth Amendment.   
      
   ==>at least by using the amendment process, which is specifically   
   ==>called for in the Constitution,  we are not allowing Justices to   
   ==>invent rights from the bench as they did in Roe v. Wade.   
      
   		No, the right to privacy is, as I will keep pointing   
   		out every time you advance this lie, enshrined   
   		in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.   
   		The right is there, no matter how fervently you   
   		anti-choice fanatics pretend it's not.   
      
   ==> On the   
   ==>remote chance such an amendment were to pass, as much as I would abhor   
   ==>it, the right to an abortion would then exist.   
      
   		The Supreme Court -- the highest law-interpretive   
   		body in the U.S. -- has ruled that this right exists   
   		now.   
      
   ==>  Until then, it was,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)