Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!unc!goodrum
From: goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Human beings
Message-ID: <35@unc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 18:11:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.35
Posted: Fri Jul 26 18:11:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 09:14:49 EDT
References: <392@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <mit-vax.420>
Reply-To: goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 20

In article <mit-vax.420> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes:
>In article Thomas Newton writes
>
>>been able to care for them.  As medical technology advances, we have been able
>>to take care of babies at earlier and earlier stages of development.
>
>Like the first trimester? Maybe in 2010, but not right now. 
>
	But according to the Supreme Court, the constitution guarantees
the right to an abortion during the first trimester. (Not that I've ever
seen the right to an abortion at any time in the constitution.) If the 
abovementioned technology is available in the year 2010, can the same
constitution say something different then?? Or is it just barely possible
that the Supreme Court erred???  

>Charles Forsythe
>CSDF@MIT-VAX

	Cloyd Goodrum 
	University Of North Carolina