From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:25:57 GMT

In <1bhc2nINN7au@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
Bill 'n' me.: >>

>>>Bill, in what material way was your life affected by the decisions in
>>>Roe?  What belief was imposed upon you?  What did you have to stop doing?
>>>Start doing?  
>
>>Your last two questions are valid criticisms, the answers being
>>"nothing" and "nothing", respectively.  But I can answer the first 
>>two, though you may disagree that my response is important enough 
>>to warrant reasonable objections.  At any rate, the Roe decision
>>is a legal endorsement of a set of values/beliefs. 
>
>In what way?  Laws about driving on the right hand side of the road,
>as opposed to the left, do not 'endorse' a set of values/beliefs.  

True enough (unless it might obliquely pertain to "public safety").  
I do contend (deja vu) that most criminal law endorses particular 
standards that appeal to philosophical notions of right and wrong, 
as does most constitutional law.  

>In what way do you figure the 'values/beliefs' 'endorsed' in Roe 
>are different than other laws?  

In general, I don't think they're different.  

>And how do you defend your interpretation below, and ignore 
>the other interpretations of values/beliefs that anybody else 
>on this net could dream up to support their position?

I don't ignore the interpretations of others.  I acknowledge
that my position represents a different set of values.  But
Roe isn't value neutral simply because it leaves the decision
up to the individual.  It does, in fact, support the notion
that 1) leaving the decision up to the individual is the right
thing to do, and 2) any decision the individual makes (within
the constraints of the law) is supported by the Constitution.
If that decision is to abort, then that's just fine.  To me,
that sounds like an endorsement of the practice of abortion.

>>It broadly
>>sanctions the notion that the choice to abort is potentially an 
>>ethical one, depending on the personal morals of the individual 
>>woman.  
>
>(to say nothing of the fact that many abortion decisions are not 
>based upon personal 'morals' but upon other considerations.  *sigh*.)

This discussion takes place on many different levels.  I think 
personal morality is a major consideration in most abortions,
even if it isn't the driving force behind the ultimate decision.
Here in the midwest, most of the pro-choice women I've discussed 
this with seem to believe that abortion is wrong for them, but
they're glad it's legal for other folks.   

>>It also endorses the notion that the only overriding value 
>>that should apply to the country as a whole, is the concept of 
>>individual freedom, and that everything else is subordinate to 
>>that.  I believe in maximizing individual freedom within broad
>>limits; I simply think that (unregulated) abortion exceeds the 
>>limits of what is reasonable and good for the culture as a whole.  
>
>Wait a minute.  These may be *your* personal values (you are welcome to
>'em), but you've just objected to having one set of values/beliefs 
>'endorsed' into law.  How, IF Roe does this (and you object) do we then
>write a law that doesn't do this?  

We can't, IMO.  It's simply a matter of whose morality will be
codified (again, IMO).  And the reason you folks will probably 
maintain this right in the end, is for that very reason.  The 
*diversity* of opinion over the issue lends itself most clearly
to allowing the individual to choose.  I don't think it speaks
well of us as a society (wrt the value we place on unborn humans,
etc. - but you know all that), but I imagine that's how it will
end up.

>See, either laws DO endorse values/beliefs, and we are arging about which
>set of toughs get to impose their values/beliefs,
>OR
>laws DON'T (or shouldn't) endorse values/beliefs, and we should avoid any
>law making that would impose such.
>
>Which is your view of the right approach?

I don't think it's a matter of a right or wrong approach.  The
decision to live corporately under the rule of law (vs. anarchy)
is itself value-based decision.  I think we're stuck with the
former, simply because the latter is impossible.

>>Roe, on the other hand, sets standard for how we as a society
>>should think about abortion.
>
>I don't think there is anything in Roe that tells you how to think, 
>Bill.

I meant that it influences the way we think about it. 

>>BTW, my position is *not* based on any misogynistic tendencies, 
>>as others have speculated.
>
>People are not going to believe motives based upon the claims of 
>the person in question, Bill.  They are going to read and decide 
>for themselves.  I'm sure you believe the above sentence is true.  
>It doesn't much matter, however, what you believe on this issue.  
>Others will come to their own conclusions.

True.

>>make such a decision that I question; rather, it is the nature 
>>of abortion itself, i.e. a life and death affecting decision 
>>that warrants stricter regulation.  
>
>See, *you* have defined abortion within a specific sphere, then 
>object to having this definition 'endorsed' upon you.  

I'm not denying that.  I simply think that mine are the "right"
values.  Most people don't deliberately embrace the "wrong" set 
of values.  :-)

>Consider, for example, the possibility that your definition is 
>incorrect. 

I have (and frequently re-evaluate it).

>Consider, for example, that the 'nature of abortion' is REALLY "a 
>highly personal decision about the use of one's body that government 
>should definitely remain out of".  Now:  if that were REALLY the nature 
>of abortion, you can see that this whole argument about 'endorsing beliefs'
>goes up in a puff of smoke, can't you?   

Can of worms.  At one level, I see your point.  But it seems to beg
the question:  what ethic is such a definition based on?  How can
we determine the veracity of such a definition without some reference
to an ethical premise to support it?  (You may invoke the Constitution 
here, and if so I will understand, but I'm really thinking more philo-
sophically here).  

>Because you are using the *wrong*
>underlying 'belief'..... one you made up that has zip to do with the
>*real* situation.

That would be true.  But my questions are still begging.  I would
have to be comfortable with the ethic upon which your definition
was based, but you've not really said what that is.

>I'm not particularly arguing the 'nature of abortion', nota bene 
>(although I consider your definition to be far too narrow).  I'm 
>pointing out that *you* are the one who defined the values/beliefs 
>that you are arguing are 'endorsed' upon you by the government.  
>Which I think is a pretty empty argument, Bill.

Hmm.  I own a gun.  It's a little single shot .22 that was a gift
when I was 12, but it's a gun nevertheless.  I don't feel guilty
about owning the gun, nor do I feel strongly that I *should* own
a gun as an exercise of my constitutional right.  However, I do
think the government endorses my choice to own the gun, via the
2nd (?) Amendment.  Therefore, the government endorses the value
that gun ownership is a fine thing.  The same arguments (IMO) are
relevant to the abortion debate.  Do you still disagree?

Bill