[FoRK] Bye bye bye Roe v. Wade

Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net
Wed Jan 19 12:47:24 PST 2005

I agree with you, if you'll allow me. ;-) I would point out that the 
'work' that the male is still on the hook for involves support and, in 
many cases, providing a life for the mother. Arguably the mother pays 
bigtime up front, but males in developed countries are responsible to 
the level of their achievement in life. The opposite problem of women 
getting pregnant on purpose or carelessly without consent of the male 
has no support for solutions, although in this age of safe sex it's more 

It might harm the woman? And pregnancy is guaranteed not to? Not even 
Pure nonsense.
If I have a growth on my body I don't want, I have it removed 
immediately. And I have. Doctors don't even bother telling me that I 
might get an infection and die; it's obvious.

Not to mention that it's quite legal to do many things that might harm 
you: smoking, drinking, driving, walking, skydiving, flying an airplane, 
inline skating through downtown traffic (ok, that's technically illegal 
in DC, although we have cops and lawyers with us sometimes), etc.

Of course, I'm against laws prohibiting using a cell phone while 
driving. If I can multitask safely, why shouldn't I be able to?
I've always used a headset since phones had jacks, so I suppose I'm 
already complying with most of the laws.

What is it with California's laws prohibiting wearing headphones while 
riding a bicycle? (Can you run or inline skate with headphones??) That's 
just too much. (I was stopped with a warning on a bike in Berkeley in 

You can't make the world completely safe, and you shouldn't really try 
beyond obvious situations. I'm all for industrial controls on machines 
that could crush or mince your hands some day, but when you are spending 
millions of dollars or hours of people's lives to save one life, things 
are way out of wack. If driving 55 instead of 75 saves 1 life per 
million hours driven, is it really worth it?

As for abortion, people are just irrational about life, the universe, 
and everything, especially religion and other mystical 
psycho-components. (Now that's a fun/sad double-entendre.)


Cleopatra Von Ludwig wrote:

>Thanks, I needed this to remind me to make another contribution to NARAL. 
>You know, the day any *man* could get pregnant, that's the day that
>I'd agree that they have any voice in the matter, let alone the
>grounds to legislate it. At the point when a woman finds out she's
>pregnant with an unwanted child, what sort of obligation does the man
>have? None -- zip -- nil. His "work" is already done.
>Abortion is completely freakin' safe -- it's one of the safest
>procedures out there. And who are they to tell me what I can and can't
>do with my own body?
>Guess I better start holding on to my wire coat-hangers... (now
>there's a lovely thought)...
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:11:32 -0800, Adam L Beberg <beberg at mithral.com> wrote:
>>And so it begins.
>>R.I.P. America
>>1776 - Bush
>>Adam L. Beberg
>>High Court Asked to Overturn Roe V. Wade
>>WASHINGTON -  The woman once known as "Jane Roe" has asked the Supreme
>>Court to overturn its landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized
>>abortion 32 years ago.
>>  Norma McCorvey, whose protest of Texas' abortion ban led to the 1973
>>ruling, contends in a petition received at the court Tuesday that the
>>case should be heard again in light of evidence that the procedure may
>>harm women.
>>  "Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen for
>>witnesses and re-evaluate Roe v. Wade (news - web sites)," said
>>McCorvey, who says she now regrets her role in the case.
>>  The politically charged issue comes before the court as both sides
>>gird for a possible bitter nomination fight over Chief Justice William
>>H. Rehnquist's replacement should the ailing justice retire this term.
>>At least three justices, including Rehnquist, have said Roe v. Wade was
>>wrongly decided and should be overturned.
>>  Two lower courts last year threw out McCorvey's request to have the
>>ruling reconsidered.
>>  But in a strongly worded concurrence, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
>>Appeals (news - web sites) judge Edith H. Jones criticized the abortion
>>ruling and said new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a
>>mother and her fetus.
>>  The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000,
>>when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called
>>"partial-birth" abortion because it failed to provide an exception to
>>protect the mother's health.
>>  Justices since then have shown little interest in wading back to the
>>emotional issue.
>>FoRK mailing list
>FoRK mailing list

More information about the FoRK mailing list