>While I have some sympathy for those who argue vocally on this
>matter--as I have argued similarly against the even more barbaric
>and useless form of child abuse called circumcision--I do not have
>any respect for those who use outright lies in their arguments.
>You know very well that the above statement is false, or else you
>haven't even read Roe v. Wade, and are therefore unqualified to
>comment upon it (and it was 7-2, not 5-4).
>That decision--wich is still the controlling law of the land--says
>that in the /first trimester only/, the state may not interfere
>with a woman's choice to abort; in the second trimester, a state
>may place limits on it; in the third, any state may ban abortion
>entirely, and many have. There are some states who have not
>banned third-trimester abortions, but even there they are
>extremely rare. They are certainly not available "on demand"
>anywhere.
100% correct. However since the constitution only applies to those
who are born within our geographical boundries, or naturalized
citizens, IMMHO these laws are unconstitutional.
Neither the federal, state or local government has any say-so (or
shouldn't have) in these matters.
Brian
Member, Extropy Institute