XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:33:00 GMT,  wrote:   
      
   ==>The law and common sense used to prohibit abortions completely. I didn't say   
   ==>they didn't occur. By using your reliance on the law and common sense we   
   ==>should still prohibit abortions completely.   
      
   		Say what?  Why would reliance on law and   
   		common sense argue for prohibition?  Seems   
   		to me, it does the exact opposite.   
      
   ==>Of course the issue has changed due to scientific advances in large part.   
   ==>The advent of birth control and women's rights have forced the need for a   
   ==>reevaluation of what the "law and common sense" say.   
      
   		Scientific "advances" have had no impact   
   		on the question, except that abortion is now   
   		available by chemical means, as well as by   
   		invasive, quasi-surgical means. Our   
   		friends in the anti-choice camp, of course.   
   		would ban any "abortion pill" as well.   
      
   		"Women's rights," as the term is usually used,   
   		also are irrelevant, since the U.S. Supreme   
   		Court found that women's rights to abortion   
   		reside in the same constitutional clause that   
   		guarantees privacy rights to everyone.   
      
   		 I don't see that any "re-evaluation" is necessary.   
      
   ==>We surely can't leave things the way they were before Row v Wade. But we   
   ==>don't have to go from one extreme to another. We are not talking rocket   
   ==>science here.   
      
   		We haven't gone to any extreme.  And you're right --   
   		it's not rocket science.  Women have an absolute   
   		right to terminate their pregnancies within the   
   		first trimester, a "qualified" right to do so later.   
      
   ==>A reasonable approach would be to allow abortions in the early stages of   
   ==>pregnancy, to allow for a change of mind by the woman, and for abortions all   
   ==>the way to severing the umbilical cord in those extrordinary circumstances   
   ==>that demand it, such as rape, health, etc. But to allow a period of time   
   ==>when society says the fetus is close enough to humanity that we won't kill   
   ==>it reflects the grey area that I spoke about earlier.   
   ==>   
   ==>As for my comment about adoptees, I admit I did pull it out of my ass. That   
   ==>is what common sense is!   
      
   		Making up "facts" to support an argument is usually   
   		considered "lying," not "common sense."   
      
      
      
   --   
   Better an abortion clinic on every streetcorner   
   than the birth of one more unwanted child.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)