Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Human beings Message-ID: <473@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 12:46:24 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-vax.473 Posted: Sat Jul 27 12:46:24 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 06:38:50 EDT References: <392@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <35@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 33 Summary: In article <35@unc.UUCP> goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) writes: >In article csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >>In article Thomas Newton writes >>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??? The Constitution doesn't mention anything about abortion. It does mention something about rights. Thus, the Supreme Court decided that it was within the rights of women to remove fetuses from themselves. In the first trimester, this gurantees the termination of development, thus there is no point in being delicate. Do you remember "Separate but Equal?" The Supreme Court reversed that one, too, because they realized they had made some fundemental ERRORS. When this amazing baby-saving technology is invented, perhaps the Supreme Court will reverese this decision too. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."